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.

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

Jump to bottom

Expand docs on Peekable::peek_mut #79478

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 28, 2020
Merged

Expand docs on Peekable::peek_mut #79478

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 28, 2020

Conversation

lukaslueg
Copy link
Contributor

Slightly expand docs on std::iter::Peekable::peek_mut, tracked in #78302

r? @m-ou-se

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Nov 27, 2020
@m-ou-se
Copy link
Member

m-ou-se commented Nov 27, 2020

Thanks!

I think the if let Some(p @ &mut &2) syntax might be a bit too advanced/unknown for a basic example. Maybe a regular if let Some(p) followed by something like an assert_eq!(*p, &2) would be better. What do you think?

@lukaslueg
Copy link
Contributor Author

I thought about that too and decided on the nested if in the first PR. Now I changed my mind because afaics we are encouraging people to use features which prevent nesting (e.g. match ... Some(n) => { if n > 0 {). The comment, therefore, says "and match on the next value.".

No strong opinion, poke at me and I'll change to an assert, which equally reflects what's going on.

@m-ou-se
Copy link
Member

m-ou-se commented Nov 27, 2020

I feel like the original one (the two ifs) was also fine. if and and assert_eq!() would be fine. Or even just .unwrap() would be fine. But I think it's better if we avoid the p @ &mut &2 syntax, as it distracts a bit from what the example is trying to show, since most people will be unfamiliar with it.

@lukaslueg
Copy link
Contributor Author

agreed

@m-ou-se
Copy link
Member

m-ou-se commented Nov 27, 2020

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 27, 2020

📌 Commit 08ec201 has been approved by m-ou-se

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 27, 2020
@jonas-schievink jonas-schievink mentioned this pull request Nov 28, 2020
Merged
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Nov 28, 2020
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#79507 - jonas-schievink:rollup-e5yeayh, r=jon…
e37f25a 
…as-schievink

Rollup of 10 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#78086 (Improve doc for 'as _')
 - rust-lang#78853 (rustc_parse: fix ConstBlock expr span)
 - rust-lang#79234 (Resolve typedefs in HashMap gdb/lldb pretty-printers)
 - rust-lang#79344 (Convert UNC path to local path to satisfy install script on Windows)
 - rust-lang#79383 (Fix bold code formatting in keyword docs)
 - rust-lang#79460 (Remove intermediate vectors from `add_bounds`)
 - rust-lang#79474 (Change comments on types to doc-comments)
 - rust-lang#79476 (Sync rustc_codegen_cranelift)
 - rust-lang#79478 (Expand docs on Peekable::peek_mut)
 - rust-lang#79486 (Slightly improve code samples in E0591)

Failed merges:

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 248e5ad into rust-lang:master Nov 28, 2020
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.50.0 milestone Nov 28, 2020
@lukaslueg lukaslueg deleted the peek_mut_docs branch November 28, 2020 17:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@m-ou-se m-ou-se

Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.50.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@lukaslueg @m-ou-se @bors @rust-highfive @rustbot