From 5f69ff50de1fb6d0dd8c005b4f11f6e436e1f34c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Hodge <tpg@mutabah.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 16:57:24 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] The order `const unsafe fn` was chosen (rust-lang/rust#29107)

---
 text/0911-const-fn.md | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/text/0911-const-fn.md b/text/0911-const-fn.md
index de4aae48e51..388d6213c14 100644
--- a/text/0911-const-fn.md
+++ b/text/0911-const-fn.md
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ invariants to be maintained (e.g. `std::ptr::Unique` requires a non-null pointer
 struct OptionalInt(u32);
 impl OptionalInt {
     /// Value must be non-zero
-    unsafe const fn new(val: u32) -> OptionalInt {
+    const unsafe fn new(val: u32) -> OptionalInt {
         OptionalInt(val)
     }
 }
@@ -241,4 +241,4 @@ cannot be taken for granted, at least `if`/`else` should eventually work.
 
 Since it was accepted, the RFC has been updated as follows:
 
-1. Allowed `unsafe const fn`
+1. Allowed `const unsafe fn`