Skip to content
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 and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Wording in "Unsized Types" chapter of TRPL is unclear #24852

Closed
mkpankov opened this issue Apr 26, 2015 · 0 comments · Fixed by #24991
Closed

Wording in "Unsized Types" chapter of TRPL is unclear #24852

mkpankov opened this issue Apr 26, 2015 · 0 comments · Fixed by #24991

Comments

@mkpankov
Copy link
Contributor

Meaning, this implementation would only work for [references][ref], and not other types of pointers. With this impl, all pointers, including (at some point, there are some bugs to fix first) user-defined custom smart pointers, can use this impl.

"With this impl" seems to refer to previously mentioned

impl Foo for str {

but it's unclear from the sentence which impl is being referred to.

@steveklabnik says he meant impl Foo for str { (link)

steveklabnik added a commit to steveklabnik/rust that referenced this issue Apr 30, 2015
First, a link was broken.

Second, the wording was a bit unclear, so I fixed it up.

Fixes rust-lang#24852
Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/rust that referenced this issue May 1, 2015
First, a link was broken.

Second, the wording was a bit unclear, so I fixed it up.

Fixes rust-lang#24852
Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/rust that referenced this issue May 1, 2015
First, a link was broken.

Second, the wording was a bit unclear, so I fixed it up.

Fixes rust-lang#24852
Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/rust that referenced this issue May 1, 2015
First, a link was broken.

Second, the wording was a bit unclear, so I fixed it up.

Fixes rust-lang#24852
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants