From 9626ca2e3ad8abf52a2d20f876bd6e9ee376666c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adin Ackerman Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 09:37:33 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] fix pin docs --- library/core/src/pin.rs | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/library/core/src/pin.rs b/library/core/src/pin.rs index ffdcd9fad49a5..ea3ba8cf3a94f 100644 --- a/library/core/src/pin.rs +++ b/library/core/src/pin.rs @@ -740,7 +740,7 @@ //! //! While counter-intuitive, it's often the easier choice: if you do not expose a //! [Pin]<[&mut] Field>, you do not need to be careful about other code -//! moving out of that field, you just have to ensure is that you never create pinning +//! moving out of that field, you just have to ensure that you never create a pinning //! reference to that field. This does of course also mean that if you decide a field does not //! have structural pinning, you must not write [`unsafe`] code that assumes (invalidly) that the //! field *is* structurally pinned!