Rollup of 6 pull requests#26002
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This was causing `rustdoc` to interpret the part starting with `(A.) ...` as a code block based on its four-space indentation, which then was treated by `rustdoc` as a *Rust* code snippet, and thus was attempting (and failing) to parse my english as Rust code. Thus causing the compiler-docs build to fail. Independently, we should probably change `rustdoc` to not interpret four-space indents as code that needs to be tested; it seems too perilous to me at least. (But the formatting here needed to be changed either way.) cc Issue rust-lang#25699.
The API documentation is not explicit enough that because `try!` returns `Err` early for you, you can only use it in functions that return `Result`. The book mentions this, but if you come across `try!` outside of the book and look it up in the docs, this restriction on the return type of the function is not particularly clear.
…sakis My main sources of information are [RFC401](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0401-coercions.md), the rust IRC channel, and a bunch of experiments to figure out what `rustc` currently supports. Note that the RFC calls for some coercion behaviour that is not implemented yet (see rust-lang#18469). The documentation in this PR mostly covers current behaviour of rust and doesn't document the future behaviour. I haven't written about receiver expression coercion. I would be happy to rewrite/adapt the PR according to feedback. r? @steveklabnik
…=Manishearth Fix the dropck doc formatting to avoid hitting four-space indent. This was causing `rustdoc` to interpret the part starting with `(A.) ...` as a code block based on its four-space indentation, which then was treated by `rustdoc` as a *Rust* code snippet, and thus was attempting (and failing) to parse my english as Rust code. Thus causing the compiler-docs build to fail. Independently, we should probably change `rustdoc` to not interpret four-space indents as code that needs to be tested; it seems too perilous to me at least. (But the formatting here needed to be changed either way.) cc Issue rust-lang#25699.
The priority policy of RWLock is not specified, and the fact there is no policy should probably be specified.
The API documentation is not explicit enough that because `try!` returns `Err` early for you, you can only use it in functions that return `Result`. The book mentions this, but if you come across `try!` outside of the book and look it up in the docs, this restriction on the return type of the function is not particularly clear. I seriously had this epiphany a few days ago after working with Rust for MONTHS, and after seeing [a friend have to come to the same realization](http://joelmccracken.github.io/entries/a-simple-web-app-in-rust-pt-2a/), I'd like to save more people from this confusion :) 💖
Issue: rust-lang#25969 Compare the span on the stable branch (correct) with the span on the nightly branch (incorrect) for the following example: http://is.gd/lTAo9c. This pull request fixes the regression. @Manishearth has been kind enough to pitch some ideas for a regression test, mainly revolving around testing the span in compile-fail test, but this has proven unsuccessful. Other suggestions/ ideas would be much appreciated!
Added missing '>' at the end of my email address :)
Contributor
|
r? @pcwalton (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
Member
Author
|
@bors: r+ p=20 force |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit 5ef7614 has been approved by |
Collaborator
|
⌛ Testing commit 5ef7614 with merge f1b053e... |
Collaborator
|
💔 Test failed - auto-mac-64-nopt-t |
Member
Author
|
@bors retry force |
Member
Author
|
@bors force |
Collaborator
Collaborator
|
💔 Test failed - auto-mac-64-opt |
Member
Author
|
@bors: r+ p=20 force |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit fd3b6ca has been approved by |
Member
Author
|
@bors force |
Member
Author
|
@bors: force |
Collaborator
|
⌛ Testing commit fd3b6ca with merge 8d25549... |
Collaborator
|
💔 Test failed - auto-win-gnu-64-nopt-t |
Member
|
@bors: retry On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:02 PM, bors notifications@github.com wrote:
|
Collaborator
Collaborator
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
11 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
try!docs to make clearer it returnsResult. #25990, Fix span for ExprPath variants (issue 25969) #25994, Typo fixed in AUTHORS.txt #26000