Fix wording for Option<T>.unwrap
#23791
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @nikomatsakis (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. The way Github handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information. |
|
thanks! |
|
This seems overly explicit. Can't this just be |
You have a point here. You're version sounds cleaner/simplier and I like it. Maybe your proposed description can be extended to still include the How does this sound like? What is the correct procedure to change this PR? Can I just push a new commit into this branch to adjust the docs or should I open a new PR? |
|
So, normally pushing a new commit would adjust, but since @alexcrichton has started a rollup, I'm not sure. |
|
Oh oops, sorry about that! If you want to send me a patch I'll put it in the rollup if it bounces, and otherwise you can just make a new PR after this one goes through :) |
jviereck
changed the title
Option<T>.unwrap. Fixes #23713Option<T>.unwrap.
jviereck
changed the title
Option<T>.unwrap.Option<T>.unwrap
Based on the comment from @apasel422 in rust-lang#23791 (comment). Where @apasel422 proposed ``` Moves the value out of the option if it is `Some`, or panics if it is `None`. ``` I include in this PR the version ``` Moves the value `v` out of the `Option` if it is `Some(v)`, or panics if it is `None`. ``` which - is a little bit more precise about what value is actually returned - uses `Option` over just "option" in the part `out of the [Option] r? @steveklabnik, @apasel422
Fixes #23713.