Rollup of 22 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #53507 (Add doc for impl From for Waker)
- #53931 (Gradually expanding libstd's keyword documentation)
- #54965 (update tcp stream documentation)
- #54977 (Accept `Option<Box<$t:ty>>` in macro argument)
- #55138 (in which unused-parens suggestions heed what the user actually wrote)
- #55173 (Suggest appropriate syntax on missing lifetime specifier in return type)
- #55200 (Documents `From` implementations for `Stdio`)
- #55245 (submodules: update clippy from 5afdf8b7 to b1d03437)
- #55247 (Clarified code example in char primitive doc)
- #55251 (Fix a typo in the documentation of RangeInclusive)
- #55253 (only issue "variant of the expected type" suggestion for enums)
- #55254 (Correct trailing ellipsis in name_from_pat)
- #55269 (fix typos in various places)
- #55282 (Remove redundant clone)
- #55285 (Do some copy editing on the release notes)
- #55291 (Update stdsimd submodule)
- #55296 (Set RUST_BACKTRACE=0 for rustdoc-ui/failed-doctest-output.rs)
- #55306 (Regression test for #54478.)
- #55328 (Fix doc for new copysign functions)
- #55340 (Operands no longer appear in places)
- #55345 (Remove is_null)
- #55348 (Update RELEASES.md after destabilization of non_modrs_mods)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
Remove is_null
It was confusingly named (`is_zero` would have been better, as someone pointed out somewhere but I forgot who or where), and it didn't even reliably test for "is this value 0 at run-time" because out-of-bounds pointers *can* be 0.
It's not used in rustc, and miri only really needs `is_null_ptr` and `to_bytes() == 0`, so let's just kill this method.
r? @oli-obk
Regression test for #54478.
This is a regression test for #54478.
I confirmed that it fails on:
rustdoc 1.30.0-beta.12 (96a229824 2018-10-04)
and passes on:
rustdoc 1.31.0-nightly (f99911a4a 2018-10-23)
Fix#54478
Set RUST_BACKTRACE=0 for rustdoc-ui/failed-doctest-output.rs
This UI test is sensitive to backtrace output, so it should make sure
that backtraces are not enabled by the environment.
Do some copy editing on the release notes
I was reading through the release notes to find something and noticed
some small grammatical and consistency issues.
I'm happy to revert any of these changes if folks disagree with them!
only issue "variant of the expected type" suggestion for enums
This suggestion (introduced in pull-request #43178 / eac74104) was being issued for one-field-struct expected types (in which case it is misleading and outright wrong), even though it was only intended for one-field enum-variants (most notably, `Some`).
Add a conditional to adhere to the original intent. (It would be possible to generalize to structs, but not obviously net desirable.) This adds a level of indentation, so the diff here is going to be
easier to read in [ignore-whitespace mode](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/commit/b0d3d3b9?w=1).
Resolves#55250.
r? @pnkfelix
