Remove managed pointers from tutorial #13298
Merged
Conversation
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
…Code examples in relevant sections were similarly altered.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 4, 2014
…orial, r=cmr Work on #13287 This is not ready for a merge yet, but I wanted to get some eyes on what I have done so far. As of right now, all references in the text to managed boxes or pointers are removed. Code associated with those specific sections of text have likewise been altered. I also removed all references to managed closures. There is a small change I would like to add to the work done in 3137cd5, on the new lines 1495 and 1496, I would like to change those values to 10 and 20. I did the same in a later change on lines 1596 and 1508. There are still bits of sample code that use managed pointers and the sigil @. Those are next on my list to remove, but I wanted to have the outstanding changes reviewed first. The uses of @ in the code samples are a bit more embedded, and I will need to be more careful changing them as to not change the purpose of the code examples. I ensured that make check still passes, although I'm not sure if that actually tests the code in tutorial.md. One issues I ran into, and tried to avoid, was that `tutorial.md` is formatted with a nice column limit. I was unsure how this was enforced, so wherever I edited a line, I did my best to keep edits on the line they previously existed on. As such, the plain text of `tutorial.md` looks a bit strange as I've left it, and I will clean that up as suggested. The rendered markdown output should not be affected.
This was referenced Apr 4, 2014
flip1995
pushed a commit
to flip1995/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 7, 2024
Don't lint unnamed consts and nested items within functions in `missing_docs_in_private_items` With this change we no longer require doc comments for `const _: ()` items as well as nested items in functions or other bodies. In both of those cases, rustdoc generates no documentation even with `--document-private-items`. Fixes rust-lang#13427 (first commit) Fixes rust-lang#13298 (second commit) cc rust-lang/rust-clippy#5736 (comment) changelog: [`missing_docs_in_private_items`]: avoid linting in more cases where rustdoc generates no documentation
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Work on #13287
This is not ready for a merge yet, but I wanted to get some eyes on what I have done so far.
As of right now, all references in the text to managed boxes or pointers are removed. Code associated with those specific sections of text have likewise been altered. I also removed all references to managed closures.
There is a small change I would like to add to the work done in 3137cd5, on the new lines 1495 and 1496, I would like to change those values to 10 and 20. I did the same in a later change on lines 1596 and 1508.
There are still bits of sample code that use managed pointers and the sigil @. Those are next on my list to remove, but I wanted to have the outstanding changes reviewed first. The uses of @ in the code samples are a bit more embedded, and I will need to be more careful changing them as to not change the purpose of the code examples.
I ensured that make check still passes, although I'm not sure if that actually tests the code in tutorial.md.
One issues I ran into, and tried to avoid, was that
tutorial.mdis formatted with a nice column limit. I was unsure how this was enforced, so wherever I edited a line, I did my best to keep edits on the line they previously existed on. As such, the plain text oftutorial.mdlooks a bit strange as I've left it, and I will clean that up as suggested. The rendered markdown output should not be affected.