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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

No mention of concatenation in std::string::String docs #30345

Closed
mrmonday opened this issue Dec 11, 2015 · 5 comments · Fixed by #30595
Closed

No mention of concatenation in std::string::String docs #30345

mrmonday opened this issue Dec 11, 2015 · 5 comments · Fixed by #30595

Comments

@mrmonday
Copy link
Contributor

In the documentation for std::string::String, there is no mention of concatenation - it's not obvious that the + operator is used for concatenation, nor that it is restricted to String + &str, and not, eg. String + String.

There should be an example showing how to concatenate/format the different string types, or, at the very least, a mention of the word 'concatenate', to allow easy searching.
@bluss
Copy link
Member

bluss commented Dec 12, 2015

Might be worth to mention all of +, format!(), [S].concat() and [S].join(sep)

@ollie27
Copy link
Member

ollie27 commented Dec 12, 2015

Should + really be documented? It just does the same as push_str so I don't know why you'd use it.

It would be useful to mention write! as a way to concatenate as well.

@bluss
Copy link
Member

bluss commented Dec 12, 2015

.push_str() is for mutate in place while a + &b consumes a and returns a new string, so it's convenient in many circumstances. Note that since only String + &str exists and that the string is consumed (its allocation simply reallocated), it's very hard to run into the quadratic concatenation trap of some languages.

@ollie27
Copy link
Member

ollie27 commented Dec 12, 2015

I understand that it can be convenient but all other methods that mutate Strings work in place so it seems really inconsistent to have a special one that doesn't.

steveklabnik added a commit to steveklabnik/rust that referenced this issue Dec 28, 2015
@steveklabnik
Remove "Learn Rust" from TRPL.
8e2ab89 
Some history:

While getting Rust to 1.0, it was a struggle to keep the book in a
working state. I had always wanted a certain kind of TOC, but couldn't
quite get it there.

At the 11th hour, I wrote up "Rust inside other langauges" and "Dining
Philosophers" in an attempt to get the book in the direction I wanted to
go. They were fine, but not my best work. I wanted to further expand
this section, but it's just never going to end up happening. We're doing
the second draft of the book now, and these sections are basically gone
already.

Here's the issues with these two sections, and removing them just fixes
it all:

// Philosophers

There was always controversy over which ones were chosen, and why. This
is kind of a perpetual bikeshed, but it comes up every once in a while.

The implementation was originally supposed to show off channels, but
never did, due to time constraints. Months later, I still haven't
re-written it to use them.

People get different results and assume that means they're wrong, rather
than the non-determinism inherent in concurrency. Platform differences
aggrivate this, as does the exact amount of sleeping and printing.

// Rust Inside Other Languages

This section is wonderful, and shows off a strength of Rust. However,
it's not clear what qualifies a language to be in this section. And I'm
not sure how tracking a ton of other languages is gonna work, into the
future; we can't test _anything_ in this section, so it's prone to
bitrot.

By removing this section, and making the Guessing Game an initial
tutorial, we will move this version of the book closer to the future
version, and just eliminate all of these questions.

In addition, this also solves the 'split-brained'-ness of having two
paths, which has endlessly confused people in the past.

I'm sad to see these sections go, but I think it's for the best.

Fixes rust-lang#30471
Fixes rust-lang#30163
Fixes rust-lang#30162
Fixes rust-lang#25488
Fixes rust-lang#30345
Fixes rust-lang#29590
Fixes rust-lang#28713
Fixes rust-lang#28915

And probably others. This lengthy list alone is enough to show that
these should have been removed.

RIP.
@steveklabnik steveklabnik mentioned this issue Dec 28, 2015
Merged
Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/rust that referenced this issue Dec 29, 2015
@Manishearth
Rollup merge of rust-lang#30595 - steveklabnik:remove_learn_rust, r=G…
ffe2be3 
…ankro

Some history:

While getting Rust to 1.0, it was a struggle to keep the book in a
working state. I had always wanted a certain kind of TOC, but couldn't
quite get it there.

At the 11th hour, I wrote up "Rust inside other langauges" and "Dining
Philosophers" in an attempt to get the book in the direction I wanted to
go. They were fine, but not my best work. I wanted to further expand
this section, but it's just never going to end up happening. We're doing
the second draft of the book now, and these sections are basically gone
already.

Here's the issues with these two sections, and removing them just fixes
it all:

// Philosophers

There was always controversy over which ones were chosen, and why. This
is kind of a perpetual bikeshed, but it comes up every once in a while.

The implementation was originally supposed to show off channels, but
never did, due to time constraints. Months later, I still haven't
re-written it to use them.

People get different results and assume that means they're wrong, rather
than the non-determinism inherent in concurrency. Platform differences
aggrivate this, as does the exact amount of sleeping and printing.

// Rust Inside Other Languages

This section is wonderful, and shows off a strength of Rust. However,
it's not clear what qualifies a language to be in this section. And I'm
not sure how tracking a ton of other languages is gonna work, into the
future; we can't test _anything_ in this section, so it's prone to
bitrot.

By removing this section, and making the Guessing Game an initial
tutorial, we will move this version of the book closer to the future
version, and just eliminate all of these questions.

In addition, this also solves the 'split-brained'-ness of having two
paths, which has endlessly confused people in the past.

I'm sad to see these sections go, but I think it's for the best.

Fixes rust-lang#30471
Fixes rust-lang#30163
Fixes rust-lang#30162
Fixes rust-lang#25488
Fixes rust-lang#30345
Fixes rust-lang#29590
Fixes rust-lang#28713
Fixes rust-lang#28915

And probably others. This lengthy list alone is enough to show that
these should have been removed.

RIP.
steveklabnik added a commit to steveklabnik/rust that referenced this issue Dec 29, 2015
@steveklabnik
Remove "Learn Rust" from TRPL.
0c6c34d 
Some history:

While getting Rust to 1.0, it was a struggle to keep the book in a
working state. I had always wanted a certain kind of TOC, but couldn't
quite get it there.

At the 11th hour, I wrote up "Rust inside other langauges" and "Dining
Philosophers" in an attempt to get the book in the direction I wanted to
go. They were fine, but not my best work. I wanted to further expand
this section, but it's just never going to end up happening. We're doing
the second draft of the book now, and these sections are basically gone
already.

Here's the issues with these two sections, and removing them just fixes
it all:

// Philosophers

There was always controversy over which ones were chosen, and why. This
is kind of a perpetual bikeshed, but it comes up every once in a while.

The implementation was originally supposed to show off channels, but
never did, due to time constraints. Months later, I still haven't
re-written it to use them.

People get different results and assume that means they're wrong, rather
than the non-determinism inherent in concurrency. Platform differences
aggrivate this, as does the exact amount of sleeping and printing.

// Rust Inside Other Languages

This section is wonderful, and shows off a strength of Rust. However,
it's not clear what qualifies a language to be in this section. And I'm
not sure how tracking a ton of other languages is gonna work, into the
future; we can't test _anything_ in this section, so it's prone to
bitrot.

By removing this section, and making the Guessing Game an initial
tutorial, we will move this version of the book closer to the future
version, and just eliminate all of these questions.

In addition, this also solves the 'split-brained'-ness of having two
paths, which has endlessly confused people in the past.

I'm sad to see these sections go, but I think it's for the best.

Fixes rust-lang#30471
Fixes rust-lang#30163
Fixes rust-lang#30162
Fixes rust-lang#25488
Fixes rust-lang#30345
Fixes rust-lang#28713
Fixes rust-lang#28915

And probably others. This lengthy list alone is enough to show that
these should have been removed.

RIP.
@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

part of #29376

bors added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 5, 2016
@bors
Auto merge of #30595 - steveklabnik:remove_learn_rust, r=gankro
803c3e2 
Some history:

While getting Rust to 1.0, it was a struggle to keep the book in a
working state. I had always wanted a certain kind of TOC, but couldn't
quite get it there.

At the 11th hour, I wrote up "Rust inside other langauges" and "Dining
Philosophers" in an attempt to get the book in the direction I wanted to
go. They were fine, but not my best work. I wanted to further expand
this section, but it's just never going to end up happening. We're doing
the second draft of the book now, and these sections are basically gone
already.

Here's the issues with these two sections, and removing them just fixes
it all:

// Philosophers

There was always controversy over which ones were chosen, and why. This
is kind of a perpetual bikeshed, but it comes up every once in a while.

The implementation was originally supposed to show off channels, but
never did, due to time constraints. Months later, I still haven't
re-written it to use them.

People get different results and assume that means they're wrong, rather
than the non-determinism inherent in concurrency. Platform differences
aggrivate this, as does the exact amount of sleeping and printing.

// Rust Inside Other Languages

This section is wonderful, and shows off a strength of Rust. However,
it's not clear what qualifies a language to be in this section. And I'm
not sure how tracking a ton of other languages is gonna work, into the
future; we can't test _anything_ in this section, so it's prone to
bitrot.

By removing this section, and making the Guessing Game an initial
tutorial, we will move this version of the book closer to the future
version, and just eliminate all of these questions.

In addition, this also solves the 'split-brained'-ness of having two
paths, which has endlessly confused people in the past.

I'm sad to see these sections go, but I think it's for the best.

Fixes #30471
Fixes #30163
Fixes #30162
Fixes #25488
Fixes #30345
Fixes #29590
Fixes #28713
Fixes #28915

And probably others. This lengthy list alone is enough to show that
these should have been removed.

RIP.
@steveklabnik steveklabnik reopened this Jan 5, 2016
@steveklabnik steveklabnik mentioned this issue Jan 7, 2016
Merged
steveklabnik added a commit to steveklabnik/rust that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2016
@steveklabnik
Add some examples to std::string
b6cc099 
Fixes rust-lang#30345
Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/rust that referenced this issue Jan 14, 2016
@Manishearth
Rollup merge of rust-lang#30770 - steveklabnik:gh30345, r=brson
6581563 
Fixes rust-lang#30345

I'm not sure if there's anything else that belongs here. Thoughts?
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Remove "Learn Rust" from TRPL. steveklabnik/rust
5 participants
@steveklabnik @mrmonday @bluss @ollie27 @apasel422