swap function order for better read flow #85253
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
When having the order ``` foo.bar(); // we can now use this method since i32 implements the Foo trait [...] impl Foo for i32 ``` the `// we can now use this method` comment is less clear to me.
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @varkor (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Thanks! @bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit a56d0e2 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 15, 2021
swap function order for better read flow I was reading this error message for the first time. I was a little bit confused when reading that part: ``` foo.bar(); // we can now use this method since i32 implements the Foo trait ``` At the time I was reading `// we can now use this method` I wasn't sure why. It only made sense when reading on. So swapping these parts results in a better read flow.
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 15, 2021
swap function order for better read flow I was reading this error message for the first time. I was a little bit confused when reading that part: ``` foo.bar(); // we can now use this method since i32 implements the Foo trait ``` At the time I was reading `// we can now use this method` I wasn't sure why. It only made sense when reading on. So swapping these parts results in a better read flow.
This was referenced May 15, 2021
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 15, 2021
…laumeGomez Rollup of 12 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#84461 (rustdoc: Remove unnecessary `StripItem` wrapper) - rust-lang#85067 (Minimize amount of fake `DefId`s used in rustdoc) - rust-lang#85207 (Fix typo in comment) - rust-lang#85215 (coverage bug fixes and some refactoring) - rust-lang#85221 (dbg macro: Discuss use in tests, and slightly clarify) - rust-lang#85246 (Miner code formatting) - rust-lang#85253 (swap function order for better read flow) - rust-lang#85256 (Fix display for "implementors" section) - rust-lang#85268 (Use my real name) - rust-lang#85278 (Improve match statements) - rust-lang#85289 (Fix toggle position on mobile) - rust-lang#85323 (Fix eslint errors) 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.
I was reading this error message for the first time.
I was a little bit confused when reading that part:
At the time I was reading
// we can now use this methodI wasn't sure why. It only made sense when reading on. So swapping these parts results in a better read flow.