Skip to content

Improve wording in error handling guide #28755

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 30, 2015
Merged

Improve wording in error handling guide #28755

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions src/doc/trpl/error-handling.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ analysis is the only way to get at the value stored inside an `Option<T>`. This
means that you, as the programmer, must handle the case when an `Option<T>` is
`None` instead of `Some(t)`.

But wait, what about `unwrap` used in [`unwrap-double`](#code-unwrap-double)?
But wait, what about `unwrap`,which we used [`previously`](#code-unwrap-double)?
There was no case analysis there! Instead, the case analysis was put inside the
`unwrap` method for you. You could define it yourself if you want:

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ that makes `unwrap` ergonomic to use. Unfortunately, that `panic!` means that

### Composing `Option<T>` values

In [`option-ex-string-find`](#code-option-ex-string-find)
In an [example from before](#code-option-ex-string-find),
we saw how to use `find` to discover the extension in a file name. Of course,
not all file names have a `.` in them, so it's possible that the file name has
no extension. This *possibility of absence* is encoded into the types using
Expand Down