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

Clean up std primitive docs #27168

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 21, 2015
Merged

Clean up std primitive docs #27168

merged 3 commits into from
Jul 21, 2015

Conversation

brson
Copy link
Contributor

@brson brson commented Jul 20, 2015

This makes the primitive descriptions on the front page read properly
as descriptions of types and not of the associated modules.

Having the primitive and module docs derived from the same source
causes problems, primarily that they can't contain hyperlinks
cross-referencing each other.

This crates dedicated private modules in std to document the
primitive types, then for all primitives that have a corresponding
module, puts hyperlinks in moth the primitive docs and the module docs
cross-linking each other.

This should help clear up confusion when readers find themselves on
the wrong page.

This also removes all the duplicate #[doc(primitive)] tags in various places (especially core), so the core docs will no longer attempt to document the primitives for now. Seems like an acceptable tradeoff to get some cleanup for std.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @pcwalton

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@brson
Copy link
Contributor Author

brson commented Jul 20, 2015

r? @steveklabnik

This makes the primitive descriptions on the front page read properly
as descriptions of types and not of the associated modules.
Having the primitive and module docs derived from the same source
causes problems, primarily that they can't contain hyperlinks
cross-referencing each other.

This crates dedicated private modules in `std` to document the
primitive types, then for all primitives that have a corresponding
module, puts hyperlinks in moth the primitive docs and the module docs
cross-linking each other.

This should help clear up confusion when readers find themselves on
the wrong page.
mod bool;
mod unit;
mod tuple;
// Include a private number of modules that exist soley to provide the
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/soley/solely/

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

A few nits but LGTM

@brson
Copy link
Contributor Author

brson commented Jul 21, 2015

Feedback addressed. Thanks for review. r=steveklibnik

@brson
Copy link
Contributor Author

brson commented Jul 21, 2015

@bors r=steveklabnik

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 21, 2015

📌 Commit 778c89c has been approved by steveklabnik

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 21, 2015

⌛ Testing commit 778c89c with merge fec23d9...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 21, 2015
This makes the primitive descriptions on the front page read properly
as descriptions of types and not of the associated modules.

Having the primitive and module docs derived from the same source
causes problems, primarily that they can't contain hyperlinks
cross-referencing each other.
    
This crates dedicated private modules in `std` to document the
primitive types, then for all primitives that have a corresponding
module, puts hyperlinks in moth the primitive docs and the module docs
cross-linking each other.
    
This should help clear up confusion when readers find themselves on
the wrong page.

This also removes all the duplicate `#[doc(primitive)]` tags in various places (especially core), so the core docs will no longer attempt to document the primitives for now. Seems like an acceptable tradeoff to get some cleanup for std.
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants