Skip to content
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

Switch from notrust to not_rust in doc comments for opting out of doc tests #500

Closed
brendanzab opened this issue Dec 6, 2014 · 11 comments
Closed

Comments

@brendanzab
Copy link
Member

I always read notrust as no trust. not-rust might also be an alternative.

@sinistersnare
Copy link

+1

@DiamondLovesYou
Copy link

+1

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Davis Silverman notifications@github.com
wrote:

+1


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#500 (comment).

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

I like this.

@skade
Copy link
Contributor

skade commented Dec 6, 2014

I am confused by this. I provided a patch making notrust unnecessary a while ago, subsequently fully removing all usage of it from the main repository.

rust-lang/rust#14569
rust-lang/rust#14601

I see that it has caught on again. :(

The proper way to opt out should be flagging it as something else (I tend to use plain, text, or the proper language like sh or c). Negative markers are a smell in my eyes.

What are the cases where we even need notrust (in any spelling)? If there is one, I would vote for a rustdoc issue allowing to remove that.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

Oh that's sweet. I was unaware. I agree that solution is better.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 6, 2014, at 13:37, Florian Gilcher notifications@github.com wrote:

I am confused by this. I provided a patch making notrust unnecessary a while ago, subsequently fully removing the usage of it.

rust-lang/rust#14569
rust-lang/rust#14601

The proper way to opt out should be flagging it as something else (I tend to use plain or text). Negative markers are a smell in my eyes.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@brendanzab
Copy link
Member Author

Oh, great! plain seems like a good standard to adopt instead - I was just used to the 'old way', which must have been just a convention.

@brendanzab
Copy link
Member Author

Also, it would be good to publicise this more widely as the convention - I was completely unaware of the switch, and as the +1s show, others were too. Maybe a make tidy test should also be added?

@skade
Copy link
Contributor

skade commented Dec 6, 2014

Is this worth a RFC to clarify? I'm in writing mood.

Also, I kept notrust in for compat reasons in the original patch, we could raise that to a warning.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

I'm in a writing mood

I haven't found the time to update http://discuss.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-documentation-conventions/521 , which this would be related to.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

Given that rust-lang/rust#20075 has landed, I believe this is no longer relevant, @bjz . What do you think?

@brendanzab
Copy link
Member Author

Sounds good.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants