Switch from notrust to not_rust in doc comments for opting out of doc tests

[brendanzab]

I always read notrust as no trust. not-rust might also be an alternative.

[sinistersnare]

+1

[DiamondLovesYou]

+1

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Davis Silverman notifications@github.com
wrote:

+1

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#500 (comment).

[steveklabnik]

I like this.

[skade]

I am confused by this. I provided a patch making notrust unnecessary a while ago, subsequently fully removing all usage of it from the main repository.

rust-lang/rust#14569
rust-lang/rust#14601

I see that it has caught on again. :(

The proper way to opt out should be flagging it as something else (I tend to use plain, text, or the proper language like sh or c). Negative markers are a smell in my eyes.

What are the cases where we even need notrust (in any spelling)? If there is one, I would vote for a rustdoc issue allowing to remove that.

[steveklabnik]

Oh that's sweet. I was unaware. I agree that solution is better.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 6, 2014, at 13:37, Florian Gilcher notifications@github.com wrote:

I am confused by this. I provided a patch making notrust unnecessary a while ago, subsequently fully removing the usage of it.

rust-lang/rust#14569
rust-lang/rust#14601

The proper way to opt out should be flagging it as something else (I tend to use plain or text). Negative markers are a smell in my eyes.

�
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[brendanzab]

Oh, great! plain seems like a good standard to adopt instead - I was just used to the 'old way', which must have been just a convention.

[brendanzab]

Also, it would be good to publicise this more widely as the convention - I was completely unaware of the switch, and as the +1s show, others were too. Maybe a make tidy test should also be added?

[skade]

Is this worth a RFC to clarify? I'm in writing mood.

Also, I kept notrust in for compat reasons in the original patch, we could raise that to a warning.

[steveklabnik]

I'm in a writing mood

I haven't found the time to update http://discuss.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-documentation-conventions/521 , which this would be related to.

[steveklabnik]

Given that rust-lang/rust#20075 has landed, I believe this is no longer relevant, @bjz . What do you think?

[brendanzab]

Sounds good.