Skip to content

Fix broken link for BoundRegion #998

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
Dec 31, 2020
Merged

Fix broken link for BoundRegion #998

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/early-late-bound.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ Moreover, a reference to a late-bound lifetime is written `^0.a`:
- The `0` is the index; it identifies that this lifetime is bound in the
innermost binder (the `for`).
- The `a` is the "name"; late-bound lifetimes in rustc are identified by a
"name" -- the [`BoundRegion`] struct. This struct can contain a
"name" -- the [`BoundRegionKind`] enum. This enum can contain a
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It seems to me that we should still be linking to BoundRegion – it's just a struct now, rather than an enum.

Copy link
Member Author

@JohnTitor JohnTitor Dec 31, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it's more straightforward to use BoundRegionKind like ExprKind or similar, since we use Kind thing mainly.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Given that BoundRegion is only a wrapper around BoundRegionKind, and that we talk about what kind of name it can be in this paragraph, I think linking to BoundRegionKind makes more sense

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In the future BoundRegion may have more fields than just kind, so wouldn't we want to link people to that?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oops, I was too late 😄

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd argue that if this is the case this chapter will need updating anyway

[`DefId`][defid] or it might have various "anonymous" numbered names. The
latter arise from types like `fn(&u32, &u32)`, which are equivalent to
something like `for<'a, 'b> fn(&'a u32, &'b u32)`, but the names of those
Expand All @@ -103,5 +103,5 @@ anonymous regions like in `fn(&u32)`, we just create a fresh index and don't hav
to update the binder.

[`Binder`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/struct.Binder.html
[`BoundRegion`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/enum.BoundRegion.html
[`BoundRegionKind`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/enum.BoundRegionKind.html
[defid]: ./hir.html#identifiers-in-the-hir