Clarify MaybeUninit docs by hkBst · Pull Request #138005 · rust-lang/rust (original) (raw)
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.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
[ Show hidden characters]({{ revealButtonHref }})
This is an attempt at excluding less impactful changes from #136689.
r? @RalfJung
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
labels
| /// according to the requirements of the variable's type. For example, a variable of |
|---|
| /// reference type must be aligned and non-null. This is an invariant that must |
| /// Every variable must be properly initialized according to the requirements of its type. |
| /// For example, a variable of reference type must be aligned and non-null. This is an invariant that must |
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You're still dong changes here without explaining the rhyme or reason for them. What is wrong with the sentence that you changed here, the first sentence of this section?
Sorry, I'm already swamped with reviews, I really don't have the time to tease out the meaningful changes from the gratuitous rewordings in a PR like this.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The idea here is to remove the distraction of mentioning the compiler. (Since it is really the language definition that matters, not what the compiler assumes...)
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That is the rigorous way of talking about it, but not the most accessible way. We have to be careful not to turn the docs into unreadable (to most of the audience) legalese.
r? libs-api
I don't have the time to deal with pure rewording PRs currently, especially not if there's meaningful changes that have a specific intent mixed with gratuitous rewording. I was asking for clear justification for every single change, which this PR still does not provide.
Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
label
Please decide how yo want to continue with this: close one of #136689 or this PR, and then for the remaining PR, if you want me to review it I'd like you to explain every single change on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. If that feels like too much, you're doing too many changes in one PR, so please cut it down -- there can always be a next PR. Smaller PRs are a lot easier to review.
Labels
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.