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

Use unsafe more idiomatically #28285

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 7, 2015
Merged

Conversation

steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

Generally, including everything that makes an unsafe block safe in the
block is good style. Since the assert! is what makes this safe, it
should go inside the block. I also added a few bits of whitespace.

This is of course, a little style thing, so no worries if we don't want this patch.

Generally, including everything that makes an unsafe block safe in the
block is good style. Since the assert! is what makes this safe, it
should go inside the block. I also added a few bits of whitespace.
@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @alexcrichton

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

@arielb1
Copy link
Contributor

arielb1 commented Sep 7, 2015

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 7, 2015

📌 Commit 5441ad6 has been approved by arielb1

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 7, 2015
Generally, including everything that makes an unsafe block safe in the
block is good style. Since the assert! is what makes this safe, it
should go inside the block. I also added a few bits of whitespace.

This is of course, a little style thing, so no worries if we don't want this patch.
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 7, 2015

⌛ Testing commit 5441ad6 with merge 7bf626a...

@bors bors merged commit 5441ad6 into rust-lang:master Sep 7, 2015
@steveklabnik steveklabnik deleted the split_at_idiom branch June 19, 2016 20:32
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.

5 participants