The Guide isn't 100% perfect, but it's basically complete. It's
certainly better than the tutorial is. Time to start pointing more
people its way.
I also just made it consistent to call all things 'guides' rather than
tutorials.
Fixes#9874. This is the big one.
And two bugs that just go away.
Fixes#14503.
Fixes#15009.
Three small changes:
1. Re-organize headers in the Strings guide so they show up correctly.
2. build the strings guide with the other docs
3. include the strings guide in the list of guides
In line with what @brson, @cmr, @nikomatsakis and I discussed this morning, my
redux of the tutorial will be implemented as the Guide. This way, I can work in
small iterations, rather than dropping a huge PR, which is hard to review. In
addition, the community can observe my work as I'm doing it.
This adds a note in line with [this comment][reddit] that clarifies the state
of the tutorial, and the community's involvement with it.
[reddit]: http://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/28bew8/rusts_documentation_is_about_to_drastically/ci9c98k
When generating documentation, rustdoc has the ability to generate relative
links within the current distribution of crates to one another. To do this, it
must recognize when a crate's documentation is in the same output directory. The
current threshold for "local documentation for crate X being available" is
whether the directory "doc/X" exists.
This change modifies the build system to have new dependencies for each
directory of upstream crates for a rustdoc invocation. This will ensure that
when building documentation that all the crates in the standard distribution are
guaranteed to have relative links to one another.
This change is prompted by guaranteeing that offline docs always work with one
another. Before this change, races could mean that some docs were built before
others, and hence may have http links when relative links would suffice.
Closes#14747
This grows a new option inside of rustdoc to add the ability to submit examples
to an external website. If the `--markdown-playground-url` command line option
or crate doc attribute `html_playground_url` is present, then examples will have
a button on hover to submit the code to the playground specified.
This commit enables submission of example code to play.rust-lang.org. The code
submitted is that which is tested by rustdoc, not necessarily the exact code
shown in the example.
Closes#14654
These fonts were moved into place by rust's makefiles, but rustdoc is widely
used outside of rustc itself. This moves the fonts into the rustdoc binary,
similarly to the other static assets, and writes them to the output location
whenever rustdoc generates documentation.
Closes#13593Closes#13787
This is intended to be the first thing somebody new to the language reads about Rust. It is supposed to be simple and intriguing, to give the user an idea of whether Rust is appropriate for them, and to hint that there's a lot of cool stuff to learn if they just keep diving deeper.
I'm particularly happy with the sequence of concurrency examples.
These syntax extensions need a place to be documented, and this starts passing a
`--cfg dox` parameter to `rustdoc` when building and testing documentation in
order to document macros so that they have no effect on the compiled crate, but
only documentation.
Closes#5605
When calling
make verify-grammar
rust.md cannot be found, because the
path to rust.md is missing.
The path is set to:
$(D)/rust.md
This can only be tested, when llnextgen is installed.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kobler <eng1@koblersystems.de>
This aims to cover the basics of writing safe unsafe code. At the moment
it is just designed to be a better place for the `asm!()` docs than the
detailed release notes wiki page, and I took the time to write up some
other things.
More examples are needed, especially of things that can subtly go wrong;
and vast areas of `unsafe`-ty aren't covered, e.g. `static mut`s and
thread-safety in general.
Closes#12803 (std: Relax an assertion in oneshot selection) r=brson
Closes#12818 (green: Fix a scheduler assertion on yielding) r=brson
Closes#12819 (doc: discuss try! in std::io) r=alexcrichton
Closes#12820 (Use generic impls for `Hash`) r=alexcrichton
Closes#12826 (Remove remaining nolink usages) r=alexcrichton
Closes#12835 (Emacs: always jump the cursor if needed on indent) r=brson
Closes#12838 (Json method cleanup) r=alexcrichton
Closes#12843 (rustdoc: whitelist the headers that get a § on hover) r=alexcrichton
Closes#12844 (docs: add two unlisted libraries to the index page) r=pnkfelix
Closes#12846 (Added a test that checks that unary structs can be mutably borrowed) r=sfackler
Closes#12847 (mk: Fix warnings about duplicated rules) r=nmatsakis
`prep.js` outputs its own HTML directives, which `pandoc` cannot
recognize when converting the document into LaTeX (this is why the
PDF docs have never been highlighted as of now).
Note that if we were to add the `.rust` class to snippets, we could
probably use pandoc's native highlighting capatibilities i.e. Kate.
This restores the old behaviour (as compared to building PDF versions of
all standalone docs), because some of the guides use unicode characters,
which seems to make pdftex unhappy.
parsing limitations.
Sundown parses
```
~~~
as a valid codeblock (i.e. mismatching delimiters), which made using
rustdoc on its own documentation impossible (since it used nested
codeblocks to demonstrate how testable codesnippets worked).
This modifies those snippets so that they're delimited by indentation,
but this then means they're tested by `rustdoc --test` & rendered as
Rust code (because there's no way to add `notrust` to
indentation-delimited code blocks). A comment is added to stop the
compiler reading the text too closely, but this unfortunately has to be
visible in the final docs, since that's the text on which the
highlighting happens.
This converts it to be very similar to crates.mk, with a single list of
the documentation items creating all the necessary bits and pieces.
Changes include:
- rustdoc is used to render HTML & test standalone docs
- documentation building now obeys NO_REBUILD=1
- testing standalone docs now obeys NO_REBUILD=1
- L10N is slightly less broken (in particular, it shares dependencies
and code with the rest of the code)
- PDFs can be built for all documentation items, not just tutorial and
manual
- removes the obsolete & unused extract-tests.py script
- adjust the CSS for standalone docs to use the rustdoc syntax
highlighting
These are ancient. I removed a bunch of questions that are less relevant - or completely unrelevant, updated other entries, and removed things that are already better expressed elsewhere.
This has been a long time coming. Conditions in rust were initially envisioned
as being a good alternative to error code return pattern. The idea is that all
errors are fatal-by-default, and you can opt-in to handling the error by
registering an error handler.
While sounding nice, conditions ended up having some unforseen shortcomings:
* Actually handling an error has some very awkward syntax:
let mut result = None;
let mut answer = None;
io::io_error::cond.trap(|e| { result = Some(e) }).inside(|| {
answer = Some(some_io_operation());
});
match result {
Some(err) => { /* hit an I/O error */ }
None => {
let answer = answer.unwrap();
/* deal with the result of I/O */
}
}
This pattern can certainly use functions like io::result, but at its core
actually handling conditions is fairly difficult
* The "zero value" of a function is often confusing. One of the main ideas
behind using conditions was to change the signature of I/O functions. Instead
of read_be_u32() returning a result, it returned a u32. Errors were notified
via a condition, and if you caught the condition you understood that the "zero
value" returned is actually a garbage value. These zero values are often
difficult to understand, however.
One case of this is the read_bytes() function. The function takes an integer
length of the amount of bytes to read, and returns an array of that size. The
array may actually be shorter, however, if an error occurred.
Another case is fs::stat(). The theoretical "zero value" is a blank stat
struct, but it's a little awkward to create and return a zero'd out stat
struct on a call to stat().
In general, the return value of functions that can raise error are much more
natural when using a Result as opposed to an always-usable zero-value.
* Conditions impose a necessary runtime requirement on *all* I/O. In theory I/O
is as simple as calling read() and write(), but using conditions imposed the
restriction that a rust local task was required if you wanted to catch errors
with I/O. While certainly an surmountable difficulty, this was always a bit of
a thorn in the side of conditions.
* Functions raising conditions are not always clear that they are raising
conditions. This suffers a similar problem to exceptions where you don't
actually know whether a function raises a condition or not. The documentation
likely explains, but if someone retroactively adds a condition to a function
there's nothing forcing upstream users to acknowledge a new point of task
failure.
* Libaries using I/O are not guaranteed to correctly raise on conditions when an
error occurs. In developing various I/O libraries, it's much easier to just
return `None` from a read rather than raising an error. The silent contract of
"don't raise on EOF" was a little difficult to understand and threw a wrench
into the answer of the question "when do I raise a condition?"
Many of these difficulties can be overcome through documentation, examples, and
general practice. In the end, all of these difficulties added together ended up
being too overwhelming and improving various aspects didn't end up helping that
much.
A result-based I/O error handling strategy also has shortcomings, but the
cognitive burden is much smaller. The tooling necessary to make this strategy as
usable as conditions were is much smaller than the tooling necessary for
conditions.
Perhaps conditions may manifest themselves as a future entity, but for now
we're going to remove them from the standard library.
Closes#9795Closes#8968
Before this patch, if you wanted to add a crate to the build system you had to
change about 100 lines across 8 separate makefiles. This is highly error prone
and opaque to all but a few. This refactoring is targeted at consolidating this
effort so adding a new crate adds one line in one file in a way that everyone
can understand it.
