Doc fixes for core::future::Future. #60128
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
Fixed outdated reference to `waker` argument; now futures are passed a `Context`, from which one can obtain a `waker`. Cleaned up explanation of what happens when you call `poll` on a completed future. It doesn't make sense to say that `poll` implementations can't cause memory unsafety; no safe function is ever allowed to cause memory unsafety, so why mention it here? It seems like the intent is to say that the `Future` trait doesn't say what the consequences of excess polls will be, and they might be bad; but that the usual constraints that Rust imposes on any non-`unsafe` function still apply. It's also oddly specific to say 'memory corruption' instead of just 'undefined behavior'; UB is a bit jargony, so the text should provide examples.
|
r? @sfackler (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
looks like a clear improvement, thanks! @bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit f8f02de has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 20, 2019
Doc fixes for core::future::Future. Fixed outdated reference to `waker` argument; now futures are passed a `Context`, from which one can obtain a `waker`. Cleaned up explanation of what happens when you call `poll` on a completed future. It doesn't make sense to say that `poll` implementations can't cause memory unsafety; no safe function is ever allowed to cause memory unsafety, so why mention it here? It seems like the intent is to say that the `Future` trait doesn't say what the consequences of excess polls will be, and they might be bad; but that the usual constraints that Rust imposes on any non-`unsafe` function still apply. It's also oddly specific to say 'memory corruption' instead of just 'undefined behavior'; UB is a bit jargony, so the text should provide examples.
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-travis, status-appveyor |
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.
Fixed outdated reference to
wakerargument; now futures are passed aContext, from which one can obtain awaker.Cleaned up explanation of what happens when you call
pollon a completedfuture. It doesn't make sense to say that
pollimplementations can't causememory unsafety; no safe function is ever allowed to cause memory unsafety, so
why mention it here? It seems like the intent is to say that the
Futuretraitdoesn't say what the consequences of excess polls will be, and they might be
bad; but that the usual constraints that Rust imposes on any non-
unsafefunction still apply. It's also oddly specific to say 'memory corruption'
instead of just 'undefined behavior'; UB is a bit jargony, so the text should
provide examples.