Fix typo in ch10-03

[paldepind]

The "if" seems misplaced. When reading it feels like "if" refers to "deterministically" as if the compiler might sometimes apply the rules nondeterministically 😅

[chriskrycho]

This one definitely keeps tripping people up, so I agree it needs a fix! 🤔 I think the phrasing we actually need is probably something like:

The elision rules don’t provide full inference. If there is still ambiguity as to what lifetimes the references have after Rust applies the rules, the compiler won’t guess what the lifetime of the remaining references should be.

If you’d like to update the PR with that, please do; if you’re busy with other things, just let me know and I will push to the PR with that instead.

[paldepind]

Thanks for the comment. Agree that it would be great to get this fixed.

What about this (my change in italics):

The elision rules don’t provide full inference. If there is still ambiguity as to what lifetimes the references have after Rust have applied the rules, the compiler won’t guess what the lifetime of the remaining references should be.

I'm not a native speaker but to me it feels like "apply" needs to be in past time (i.e. "applied" instead of "applies") due to the use of "after".

Could also be:

The elision rules don’t provide full inference. If there is still ambiguity as to what lifetimes the references have after the rules have been applied, the compiler won’t guess what the lifetime of the remaining references should be.

This removes "Rust" which I think simplifies the sentence a bit because the compiler is the only acting part instead of both having "Rust" and "the compiler" as something that does something in the same sentence.

In any case I'll be happy to update the PR.

[chriskrycho]

Thanks for the response! For what it’s worth, the way I phrased it is actually very idiomatic English!

[paldepind]

l've updated the PR with the wording that you suggested @chriskrycho :)

[chriskrycho]

Thank you!