Rollup of 14 pull requests #28220
Merged
Rollup of 14 pull requests #28220
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Member
steveklabnik
commented
Sep 4, 2015
steveklabnik
commented
- Successful merges: Use consistent terminology for byte string literals #28167, reference grammar: loop label should be optional #28202, Take method invocation semantics out of chapter on deref coercion. #28203, reference grammar: remove duplicate else_tail rule #28204, reference grammar: remove procedure_type #28205, book: improve flow #28207, reference grammar: whitespace cleanup #28208, doc: reduce indentation of examples to 4 spaces #28209, book: it is RwLock, not RWLock #28210, book: Rust is a language, so no need to mention that fact here #28212, book: replace comma with a more suitable character #28213, book: "word" feels more suitable than "name" #28214, reference grammar: fix item definition #28215, Removed incorrect reference from #28196 #28216
- Failed merges:
r? @nikomatsakis Trying to land this first stab, which basically just duplicates the AST. Will file issues for the various things I've got in mind to improve.
Because 'doc' is a directory, when running `make doc`, you'll see
this:
make: Nothing to be done for `doc'.
By adding a target for `doc` to build `docs`, both work.
Fixes rust-lang#14705
Because 'doc' is a directory, when running `make doc`, you'll see
this:
make: Nothing to be done for `doc'.
By adding a target for `doc` to build `docs`, both work.
Fixes rust-lang#14705
r? @steveklabnik ##### About the `struct` section specifically: I wasn't sure how you'd feel about the first instance since it was originally capitalized, happy to change it back if you think that's better. Also, I left 'tuple struct' as is since together it isn't a keyword. The first instance currently has single quotes but the others have nothing. I think that feels right. ##### Generally: I'm working through the book now and I'm happy to keep updating this branch with any formatting tweaks or updates I find if that's easier for you guys, otherwise I'll just create smaller PRs as I go. Just let me know.
The embed rust file that we compile prints out 'Thread finished..' messages along with a 'done!'
Avoid confusion with binary integer literals and binary operator expressions in libsyntax
this improves the compilation time for small crates by ~20%
…arth As title :-) Part of rust-lang#24407. r? @Manishearth
This adds missing `?` marks to productions for loops and break/continue. It also adds missing option label to while let loop
Also, add missing comma
…arth As title :-) Part of rust-lang#24407. r? @Manishearth
- Successful merges: rust-lang#28164, rust-lang#28170, rust-lang#28184, rust-lang#28186, rust-lang#28187, rust-lang#28188, rust-lang#28191, rust-lang#28193, rust-lang#28194, rust-lang#28195 - Failed merges:
extern_block should extern_block_item
Avoid confusion with binary integer literals and binary operator expressions in libsyntax
…eklabnik This adds missing `?` marks to productions for loops and break/continue. It also adds missing option label to while let loop. Note that '[' foo ']' means grouping in BNF, and '?' is used for possible missing items. r? @steveklabnik
I have two issues with the section "Deref and method calls" of the book's chapter "Deref coercions".
- (Minor) It says "In other words, these are the same two things in Rust:", followed by a code block in which no two things seem similar, much less the same. Presumably this sentence made more sense in a previous revision.
- The next paragraph conflates two concepts which, imho, should kept separate. They are
- deref coercion, i.e. inserting as many `*` as necessary and
- implicitly referencing the receiver, i.e. inserting a single `&` to satisfy the method's `self` parameter type.
I appreciate that with the proposed changes the example becomes very contrived, even for a foo-bar-baz one. However, the current exmplanation is just wrong.
…, r=steveklabnik The rule `else_tail` was duplicated in `if` and `if_let` sections. I guess that this is a mistake. r? @steveklabnik
…crichton As I understand, there are no proc closures in Rust any more. So this pr removes `procedure_type` production. It isn't used anywhere. The `proc` is still a keyword. r? @steveklabnik @bors: r+ rollup
… r=steveklabnik
…veklabnik Also, add trailing commas
Also, add missing comma
…r=steveklabnik
extern_block should be extern_block_item.
extern_block_item is `extern { bunch of fns }`, extern_block is just `bunch of fns`
r? @steveklabnik
…klabnik This is a docs change suggested in rust-lang#28196. r? @steveklabnik
|
@bors: r+ p=1 |
|
📌 Commit 6c9549d has been approved by |
|
r? @huonw (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.