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

Tiny doc wording change #39366

Closed
adrian5 opened this issue Jan 28, 2017 · 3 comments
Closed

Tiny doc wording change #39366

adrian5 opened this issue Jan 28, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@adrian5
Copy link
Contributor

adrian5 commented Jan 28, 2017

Sync > Condvar

The predicate is always verified inside of the mutex before determining that thread must block.

Rather "determining that a thread"?

Alloc > Rc

The type Rc<T> provides shared ownership of a value of type T, allocated in the heap.

Rather "allocated on the heap"? That's how it know it.

@phungleson
Copy link
Contributor

Quickly did a search, seems like in the heap is a very common phrase in the doc.

Maybe it is a convention?

@adrian5
Copy link
Contributor Author

adrian5 commented Feb 3, 2017

Yes, I hadn't considered that. It's self-evident that things are (metaphorically) put onto the stack , and maybe programmers adopted that expression for both. For the heap, in works too. Is there a difference in expressing data being written (on), and residing somewhere (in)?

In the book, the section on the stack and heap appears to use on throughout.

GuillaumeGomez added a commit to GuillaumeGomez/rust that referenced this issue Feb 4, 2017
frewsxcv added a commit to frewsxcv/rust that referenced this issue Feb 4, 2017
frewsxcv added a commit to frewsxcv/rust that referenced this issue Feb 4, 2017
@phungleson
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry I accidentally close this via my PR, feel free to reopen this if you want.

My unscientific checking shows that java "on the heap" has the same number of result with java "in the heap" in google so maybe they are both commonly used.

anatol pushed a commit to anatol/steed that referenced this issue Mar 31, 2017
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

2 participants