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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Update intra-doc link documentation to match the implementation #80874
Update intra-doc link documentation to match the implementation #80874
Changes from 2 commits
0271791
d5392d1
db0b416
21717f0
44c72f6
86e2fcb
c2694f1
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should probably note somewhere that non-intra-doc links are case-insensitive; see #80882.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ugh, #80882 is a mess. I think I'd prefer to see what the plan is there before updating the documentation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It may not be necessary, but do you want to note that the type namespace includes modules?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would prefer not to; if you get it wrong it will be clear from the error message. If we mention modules we should also say functions are in the value namespace, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What does "even when re-exported" mean here? Can you elaborate?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#73101, basically. If you re-export an item it doesn't affect how rustdoc treats the links, they'll still resolve the same.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think you're missing a word here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should probably define what re-exports are or link to the
doc(inline)
page somewhere.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it worked before, but sure, I added the extra word.
Do you think we need to? I think the example makes it pretty clear.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to link to the source code here. For one, it will very easily become out-of-date because it's tied to a particular commit. I think we should either skip this or include the list directly in the documentation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, I kind of prefer not to tie this down so we can update it in the future. Maybe I could change the commit hash to
master
instead? That might have wrong line numbers though.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I think that would be very confusing.
What do you mean? Documenting it isn't "tying it down".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So, this is a not a reference, this is a book, and I don't think it should go into that much detail. We do not need to document every last corner of the implementation here. Let's just drop this section.