Adjust / fix documentation of Arc::make_mut
#88156
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
A-docs
|
(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Oops, I’m having the sentence about |
Related discussion in the users forum: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/what-s-this-alleged-difference-between-arc-make-mut-and-rc-make-mut/63747?u=steffahn Also includes small formatting improvement in the documentation of `Rc::make_mut`. This commit makes the two documentations in question complete analogs. The previously claimed point in which one "differs from the behavior of" the other turns out to be incorrect, AFAIK. One remaining inaccuracy: `Weak` pointers aren't disassociated from the allocation but only from the contained value, i.e. in case of outstanding `Weak` pointers there still is a new allocation created, just the call to `.clone()` is avoided, instead the value is moved from one allocation to the other.
steffahn
force-pushed
the
arc_make_mut_and_weak
branch
from
4427747 to
51d598e
Compare
Mark-Simulacrum
added
S-waiting-on-author
…noting the fact that `clone` is not called. Co-authored-by: Mark Rousskov <mark.simulacrum@gmail.com>
steffahn
force-pushed
the
arc_make_mut_and_weak
branch
from
e653f22 to
335bf7c
Compare
|
@rustbot label -S-waiting-on-author S-waiting-on-review |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 90354c7 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 25, 2021
…eulArtichaut Rollup of 16 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#87944 (add Cell::as_array_of_cells, similar to Cell::as_slice_of_cells) - rust-lang#88156 (Adjust / fix documentation of `Arc::make_mut`) - rust-lang#88157 (bootstrap.py: recognize riscv64 when auto-detect) - rust-lang#88196 (Refactor `named_asm_labels` to a HIR lint) - rust-lang#88218 (Remove `Session.trait_methods_not_found`) - rust-lang#88223 (Remove the `TryV2` alias) - rust-lang#88226 (Fix typo “a Rc” → “an Rc” (and a few more)) - rust-lang#88267 (2229: Update signature for truncate function) - rust-lang#88273 (Fix references to `ControlFlow` in docs) - rust-lang#88277 (Update books) - rust-lang#88291 (Add SAFETY comments to core::slice::sort::partition_in_blocks) - rust-lang#88293 (Fix grammar in alloc test) - rust-lang#88298 (Errorkind reorder) - rust-lang#88299 (Stabilise BufWriter::into_parts) - rust-lang#88314 (Add type of a let tait test) - rust-lang#88325 (Add mutable-noalias to the release notes for 1.54) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Related discussion in the users forum:
Whatʼs this alleged difference between Arc::make_mut and Rc::make_mut? – The Rust Programming Language Forum
Also includes a small formatting improvement in the documentation of
Rc::make_mut.This PR makes the two documentations in question complete analogs. The previously claimed point in which one “differs from the behavior of” the other turns out to be incorrect, AFAIK.
One remaining inaccuracy:
Weakpointers aren’t disassociated from the allocation but only from the contained value, i.e. in case of outstandingWeakpointers there still is a new allocation created, just the call to.clone()is avoided, instead the value is moved from one allocation to the other.@rustbot label T-libs-api, A-docs