More foo32 consistency
#5619
More foo32 consistency
#5619
Conversation
robertbastian
requested review from
sffc,
Manishearth,
echeran and
a team
as code owners
| /// assert!(!alphabetic.contains32(0x0A69)); // U+0A69 GURMUKHI DIGIT THREE | ||
| /// assert!(alphabetic.contains32(0x00C4)); // U+00C4 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH DIAERESIS | ||
| /// ``` | ||
| /// See [`Self::contains`]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion, here and elsewhere: Previously the docs said "as a UTF32 code unit" but now it doesn't say that any more.
| /// See [`Self::contains`]. | |
| /// Returns whether the set contains a code point represented as a UTF-32 code unit. | |
| /// | |
| /// For an example, see [`Self::contains`]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A u32 is not a UTF-32 code unit though, this was incorrect.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Huh?
It's important to say that the u32 is a UTF-32 code unit. Otherwise, I don't know what it is: it could be a zero-padded ASCII, a Latin1 byte, a TinyStr, …
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you're bothered by "not all u32s are code points", you could stick our agreed-upon term "potential" in there somewhere
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please just approve this PR as this is blocking another PR. I can improve docs for all 32 methods in a follow-up.
robertbastian
requested review from
sffc and
Manishearth
and removed request for
dminor and
zbraniecki
#2413