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

Moved use of box_syntax in TRPL book. #23822

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 2, 2015

Conversation

tanadeau
Copy link
Contributor

This is the first use of box. It's an unstable feature and also isn't
consistent with the use of Box in the "original" code above it.

r? @steveklabnik

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @steveklabnik (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. The way Github handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member

This might be deliberate?

5ce1b33

cc @steveklabnik

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

Yes, this matters. It's possible that this should be removed and a section should be added in the unstable section though. But just this diff doesn't work.

@tanadeau
Copy link
Contributor Author

That makes sense. I'll update this PR with a new section about box syntax.

@tanadeau tanadeau force-pushed the remove-box-syntax-in-pointers-doc branch from a81100f to 97fd8ac Compare March 31, 2015 03:03
@tanadeau
Copy link
Contributor Author

I added a new section about box syntax and patterns.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 1, 2015

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #23936) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@tanadeau tanadeau force-pushed the remove-box-syntax-in-pointers-doc branch from 6b12a8a to 44fdbda Compare April 2, 2015 00:04
@tanadeau
Copy link
Contributor Author

tanadeau commented Apr 2, 2015

I rebased on top of master.

@tanadeau
Copy link
Contributor Author

tanadeau commented Apr 2, 2015

@steveklabnik This PR should now be ready for review.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

So the content here is good, but the section that uses the gate, about return values, should end up being in the new chapter as well, as it relies on the keyword.

Create a new section under the Unstable section for `box` syntax and
patterns and removed their discussion from the Pointers section.
@tanadeau tanadeau force-pushed the remove-box-syntax-in-pointers-doc branch from 44fdbda to 00d929d Compare April 2, 2015 01:55
@tanadeau tanadeau changed the title Removed use of box_syntax in pointers doc in TRPL book. Moved use of box_syntax in pointers doc in TRPL book. Apr 2, 2015
@tanadeau
Copy link
Contributor Author

tanadeau commented Apr 2, 2015

@steveklabnik Done.

@tanadeau tanadeau changed the title Moved use of box_syntax in pointers doc in TRPL book. Moved use of box_syntax in TRPL book. Apr 2, 2015
@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

@bors: r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

📌 Commit 00d929d has been approved by steveklabnik

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

Thank you! :D

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit 00d929d with merge 3e8a773...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 2, 2015
…steveklabnik

This is the first use of `box`. It's an unstable feature and also isn't
consistent with the use of `Box` in the "original" code above it.

r? @steveklabnik
@bors bors merged commit 00d929d into rust-lang:master Apr 2, 2015
@tanadeau tanadeau deleted the remove-box-syntax-in-pointers-doc branch April 3, 2015 01:29
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 this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants