-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
Improve wording for external crate resolution error #77379
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improve wording for external crate resolution error #77379
Conversation
I think it reads better this way.
r? @davidtwco (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, r=me when CI passes
@@ -1157,7 +1157,7 @@ impl<'a, 'b> ImportResolver<'a, 'b> { | |||
} | |||
_ => { | |||
if !ident.is_path_segment_keyword() { | |||
format!("no `{}` external crate", ident) | |||
format!("no external crate `{}`", ident) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I considered changing it to "no external crate named", but I didn't want to be wordy. What do you think?
format!("no external crate `{}`", ident) | |
format!("no external crate named `{}`", ident) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that the PR's current wording is fine, but I don't feel strongly - either is an improvement.
@bors r=davidtwco |
@camelid: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: Not in reviewers |
Oh well, worth a try :) |
@bors r=davidtwco rollup |
📌 Commit 2c5e2a6 has been approved by |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions, checks-azure |
I think it reads better this way.