Description
Description
When trying to figure out how I should formulate the documentation for clear_with_drain, I had a look at how other lints are formulated, and I found a few different ways which are pretty much equivalent.
Here are the statistics I gathered:
| Formulation | Number of occurrences |
|---|---|
| "Checks for usage" | 59 |
| "Checks for use" | 16 |
| "Checks for usages" | 12 |
| "Checks for uses" | 6 |
| "Checks for using" | 3 |
| "Detect uses" | 2 |
| "Detects uses" | 2 |
| "Check for use" | 1 |
| "Detect use" | 1 |
| Total | 102 |
Note: I used case-insensitive search and I made sure plural and singular forms were counted separately by using
[^s]in the regexes for singular forms. Also, to double check, the Total is not just the sum of all the occurrences, it was obtained by a single call with a regex that matches all these cases (and more which I did not include because they had 0 occurrences).
These represent about 1/6 of the total number of lints, which is quite significant.
I propose to standardize the formulation, opting for the most frequent one, i.e. Checks for usage. Of course, I am open to picking a different one if a native English speaker (which I'm not) tells me that it is not the most idiomatic 🙂
Version
No response
Additional Labels
@rustbot label +C-enhancement +A-documentation