Update Condvar docs to use match ergonomics #62857
Labels
A-docs
Area: documentation for any part of the project, including the compiler, standard library, and tools
C-enhancement
Category: An issue proposing an enhancement or a PR with one.
E-easy
Call for participation: Easy difficulty. Experience needed to fix: Not much. Good first issue.
T-libs-api
Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Comments
jonas-schievink
added
E-easy
|
Sounds like a good idea to me. This should probably also be done for all the examples on that type (there's quite a lot using this pattern). Want to send a PR? |
|
@jonas-schievink Sure! It will give me an excuse to read all of the |
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this issue
Jul 24, 2019
…rgo, r=sfackler Use match ergonomics in Condvar documentation Documentation was written before match ergonomics was merged. See rust-lang#62857. In short, replaces ```rust let &(ref lock, ref cvar) = &*pair; ``` with ```rust let (lock, cvar) = &*pair ``` in the docs of `std::sync::Condvar`.
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this issue
Jul 25, 2019
…rgo, r=sfackler Use match ergonomics in Condvar documentation Documentation was written before match ergonomics was merged. See rust-lang#62857. In short, replaces ```rust let &(ref lock, ref cvar) = &*pair; ``` with ```rust let (lock, cvar) = &*pair ``` in the docs of `std::sync::Condvar`.
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this issue
Jul 25, 2019
…rgo, r=sfackler Use match ergonomics in Condvar documentation Documentation was written before match ergonomics was merged. See rust-lang#62857. In short, replaces ```rust let &(ref lock, ref cvar) = &*pair; ``` with ```rust let (lock, cvar) = &*pair ``` in the docs of `std::sync::Condvar`.
|
Fixed by #62942 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
In
std::sync::Condvar's docs, it looks like line 39:and line 51
were written before the match ergonomics RFC was merged.
Is it reasonable/preferable to change these lines to leverage match ergonomics? They would become:
and
respectively.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: