Skip to content

Try to clear up some awkward wording #35103

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 29, 2016
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions src/doc/book/closures.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -291,9 +291,9 @@ isn’t interesting. The next part is:
# some_closure(1) }
```

Because `Fn` is a trait, we can bound our generic with it. In this case, our
closure takes a `i32` as an argument and returns an `i32`, and so the generic
bound we use is `Fn(i32) -> i32`.
Because `Fn` is a trait, we can use it as a bound for our generic type. In
this case, our closure takes a `i32` as an argument and returns an `i32`, and
so the generic bound we use is `Fn(i32) -> i32`.

There’s one other key point here: because we’re bounding a generic with a
trait, this will get monomorphized, and therefore, we’ll be doing static
Expand Down