Mention spec and indented blocks in doctest docs #51158
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
This commit adds a new section to the Documentation Test docs, which briefly mentions indented code blocks, and links to the CommonMark specification for both. I’m not sure about saying "fenced code blocks the more popular choice in the Rust community” because it seems like I’m speaking for everyone, but I can’t think of a better way to phrase it!
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Thanks for writing this out! I can see how this can be a hidden gotcha - it got a few people when we switched to a CommonMark-compliant Markdown parser, since our previous one didn't create indented code blocks as readily as the new one did.
In situations like this I usually go for "considered more idiomatic" since it's partially about making our examples a certain way so people will copy them. It's another way to say "more popular" for this specific case, since the style's been around long enough to have gained a lot of traction! |
|
That’s a good way of putting it. I’ve updated the PR |
steveklabnik
approved these changes
May 29, 2018
|
@bors: r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 8f8a7b9 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
🔒 Merge conflict |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 30, 2018
Mention spec and indented blocks in doctest docs Fixes rust-lang#49717. This commit adds a new section to the Documentation Test docs, which briefly mentions indented code blocks, and links to the CommonMark specification for both. I’m not sure about saying "fenced code blocks the more popular choice in the Rust community” because it seems like I’m speaking for everyone, but I can’t think of a better way to phrase it!
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 30, 2018
Rollup of 12 pull requests Successful merges: - #51050 (std::fs::DirEntry.metadata(): use fstatat instead of lstat when possible) - #51123 (Update build instructions) - #51127 (Add doc link from discriminant struct to function.) - #51146 (typeck: Do not pass the field check on field error) - #51147 (Stabilize SliceIndex trait.) - #51151 (Move slice::exact_chunks directly above exact_chunks_mut for more con…) - #51152 (Replace `if` with `if and only if` in the definition dox of `Sync`) - #51153 (Link panic and compile_error docs) - #51158 (Mention spec and indented blocks in doctest docs) - #51186 (Remove two redundant .nll.stderr files) - #51203 (Two minor `obligation_forest` tweaks.) - #51213 (fs: copy: Use File::set_permissions instead of fs::set_permissions) Failed merges:
|
@steveklabnik this probably needs to be r+ed again. |
pietroalbini
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Uh, nevermind. @ogham you need to rebase this PR on top of the latest master. |
pietroalbini
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
@ogham, It looks like your PR needs a rebase, do you think you'll have the time to do that? |
|
@bors retry |
bors
removed
the
S-waiting-on-author
bors
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 22, 2018
Mention spec and indented blocks in doctest docs Fixes rust-lang#49717. This commit adds a new section to the Documentation Test docs, which briefly mentions indented code blocks, and links to the CommonMark specification for both. I’m not sure about saying "fenced code blocks the more popular choice in the Rust community” because it seems like I’m speaking for everyone, but I can’t think of a better way to phrase it!
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 22, 2018
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - #51158 (Mention spec and indented blocks in doctest docs) - #51629 (Do not consume semicolon twice while parsing local statement) - #51637 (Update zx_cprng_draw_new on Fuchsia) - #51664 (make more libsyntax methods public) - #51666 (Disable probestack when GCOV profiling is being used) - #51703 (Recognize the extra "LLVM tools versions" argument to build-manifest.) Failed merges: r? @ghost
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.
Fixes #49717.
This commit adds a new section to the Documentation Test docs, which briefly mentions indented code blocks, and links to the CommonMark specification for both.
I’m not sure about saying "fenced code blocks the more popular choice in the Rust community” because it seems like I’m speaking for everyone, but I can’t think of a better way to phrase it!