Format std::env::consts docstrings with markdown backticks

[mmvanheusden]

This clarifies possible outputs the constants might be.

Before:

After:

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @workingjubilee (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

• @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
• @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

[workingjubilee]

This is not correct. None of these are actual values in Rust source code, and the backticks are for code, therefore adding the backticks here would also require adding the string quotation marks for each case.

[workingjubilee]

If it is purely for readability's sake then I do not find this to be more readable.

[mmvanheusden]

Sure, will change that.

Would it be okay if I add each value it can return to the docs? Or would that list become too long

[workingjubilee]

It would become far too long for some of these. I think we should only have the "top 5" in the docs, honestly.

I would be okay with adding the entire list inside <details></details> blocks, for the curious.

[workingjubilee]

I would be okay with adding the entire list inside <details></details> blocks, for the curious.

This would look vaguely like

/// <details><summary>Full List</summary>
///
/// - item
/// - item
///
/// </details>

[rustbot]

There are merge commits (commits with multiple parents) in your changes. We have a no merge policy so these commits will need to be removed for this pull request to be merged.

You can start a rebase with the following commands:

$ # rebase
$ git pull --rebase https://github.com/rust-lang/rust.git master
$ git push --force-with-lease

The following commits are merge commits:

• afe7379

[mmvanheusden]

@rustbot review

[workingjubilee]

this one should probably just mention that the list is the same as the list for DLL_EXTENSION

[workingjubilee]

this is missing "wasm", see:

rust/compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/base/wasm.rs

Line 56 in 2c93fab

families: cvs!["wasm"],

which makes me slightly more uncomfortable about accepting this, because I am noticing how easily this will fall out of sync, yet it claims to be a "full list". hrm.

[mmvanheusden]

Yes, that is indeed tricky. Maybe I can add a notice that the list might be outdated but that kind of defeats the purpose of the list being there in the first place.

[workingjubilee]

Hmm...

• maybe we could factor out the lists and reinclude them via #[doc = include_str!("")]? I think we should prefer to autogenerate such lists and while demanding that of you seems silly, that will be easier to set up later if they are already smaller .md files.
• I think saying "this may be outdated" is useless for the reason you mention, but we could address the temporality of the docs in another way. It could mention that this is the "current full list" inside the <summary></summary> tag. Or even say "the compiled list". :^) Or however you might want to phrase that? Even just between versions, the "actual" full list will grow over time, but docs reflect a snapshot in time.

[workingjubilee]

Suggested change

	/// The possible values are identical to those of [`EXE_EXTENSION`], but with the leading period included.
	/// The possible values are identical to those of [`EXE_EXTENSION`], but with the leading period included
	/// if `EXE_EXTENSION` is not `""`.

[workingjubilee]

Hmm...

• maybe we could factor out the lists and reinclude them via #[doc = include_str!("")]? I think we should prefer to autogenerate such lists and while demanding that of you seems silly, that will be easier to set up later if they are already smaller .md files.
• I think saying "this may be outdated" is useless for the reason you mention, but we could address the temporality of the docs in another way. It could mention that this is the "current full list" inside the <summary></summary> tag. Or even say "the compiled list". :^) Or however you might want to phrase that? Even just between versions, the "actual" full list will grow over time, but docs reflect a snapshot in time.

[workingjubilee]

Hmm.

Better to ship this instead of holding it up further though, imo.

Thanks!

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 0328c86 has been approved by workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.