| @@ -288,8 +288,19 @@ marker_impls! { |
|
|
| 288 |
288 |
/// } |
| 289 |
289 |
/// ``` |
| 290 |
290 |
/// |
| 291 |
|
-/// There is a small difference between the two: the `derive` strategy will also place a `Copy` |
| 292 |
|
-/// bound on type parameters, which isn't always desired. |
|
291 |
+/// There is a small difference between the two. The `derive` strategy will also place a `Copy` |
|
292 |
+/// bound on type parameters: |
|
293 |
+/// |
|
294 |
+/// ``` |
|
295 |
+/// #[derive(Clone)] |
|
296 |
+/// struct MyStruct(T); |
|
297 |
+/// |
|
298 |
+/// impl<T: Copy> Copy for MyStruct { } |
|
299 |
+/// ``` |
|
300 |
+/// |
|
301 |
+/// This isn't always desired. For example, shared references (`&T`) can be copied regardless of |
|
302 |
+/// whether `T` is `Copy`. Likewise, a generic struct containing markers such as [`PhantomData`] |
|
303 |
+/// could potentially be duplicated with a bit-wise copy. |
| 293 |
304 |
/// |
| 294 |
305 |
/// ## What's the difference between `Copy` and `Clone`? |
| 295 |
306 |
/// |