As it is, save-analysis appears to return the span for the 'mut' in a declaration 'static mut identifier...' instead of the identifier. This minor change appears to fix the problem, by skipping the mut when it is present.
The enums chapter at the moment is ... weird. The examples aren't about enums, they're about structs, and most of the chapter talks about how enums don't support comparison operators by default (which is also true of other compound data types.) I think there was a story here once, but some coherency got lost in refactoring.
There are two preliminary patches here, one to combine the struct and tuple-struct chapters, and one to document unit-like structs, because enum syntax is easier to explain once you have those three. The final patch moves the enum chapter after the struct chapter, and rewrites most of it to talk about enums usefully (including covering matches on enums).
r? @steveklabnik
This makes the compatibility matrix render a little nicer on github, and also removes a note about windows support from 0.12 (Which is immaterial now that we're approaching 1.0)
Attempted to organize them in a way more relevant to what newbies
would be interested in hearing.
I am not satisfied by this at all, but by virtue of deleting old links alone I think it is an improvement.
r? @steveklabnik
* segfault due to not copying drop flag when coercing
* fat pointer casts
* segfault due to not checking drop flag properly
* debuginfo for DST smart pointers
* unreachable code in drop glue
I did a read through of the manual. This commit corrects various small points and expands some sections, while avoiding too much detail.
r? @steveklabnik
At the moment, http://doc.rust-lang.org/error-index.html isn't linked to from anywhere (except Reddit). This should allow search engines to find error codes!
I also capitalised "The Standard Library" and neatened a few bits of grammar.
Also fixed: `#[main]` inside one of the error descriptions.
Add diagnostic message for E0317, E0154, E0259 and E0260; part of #24407.
About E0317, I was unsure if I should add an example of what could be wrong, such as `struct i64`, `enum char { A, B }` or `type isize = i64`. I decided against it, since the diagnostic message looks clear enough to me.
What do you think?
I corrected some pretty obvious textual mistakes. One thing requires more attention - the paragraph at line 133 in Ownership. It was confusing, so I changed it, but I am no sure if this is what the author had in mind.
