Skip to content

Fixed wording in Rust 1.45 Blog Post #654

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 21, 2020
Merged

Fixed wording in Rust 1.45 Blog Post #654

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
554b70b
Fixed wording in Rust 1.45 Blog Post
JosephTLyons Jul 16, 2020
a0836e6
Fixed wording in Rust 1.45 Blog Post (2nd proposal)
JosephTLyons Jul 17, 2020
0447725
Fixed wording in Rust 1.45 Blog Post (3rd proposal)
JosephTLyons Jul 21, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 4 additions & 4 deletions posts/2020-07-16-Rust-1.45.0.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -86,10 +86,10 @@ fn main() {
```

On Rust 1.44.0, this happens to print "x: 0" on my machine. But it could
print anything, or do anything: this is undefined behavior. But we have
no `unsafe` code here. This is what we call a "soundness" bug, that is,
it is a bug where the compiler does the wrong thing. We tag these bugs
as
print anything, or do anything: this is undefined behavior. But the `unsafe`
keyword has not be specified in this code block. This is what we call a
"soundness" bug, that is, it is a bug where the compiler does the wrong thing.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
keyword has not be specified in this code block. This is what we call a
"soundness" bug, that is, it is a bug where the compiler does the wrong thing.
keyword has not been specified in this code block. This is what we call a
"soundness" bug, where the compiler does the wrong thing.

minor suggestion re be vs been. using that is in the middle of a sentence is pretty weird as well, so maybe we can get two fixes in one.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This suggestion is good re: grammar, but using "specified" here sounds odd, because specification has a different meaning, technically.

I can appreciate this sentence maybe sounding odd, but I think moving it in this direction makes it sound more odd, not less.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oops, yeah the "be" was a typo. Ironic.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What about

But the unsafe keyword is nowhere to be found within this block of code.

?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I prefer this latter formulation, fwiw.

We tag these bugs as
[I-unsound](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22I-unsound+%F0%9F%92%A5%22)
on our issue tracker, and take them very seriously.

Expand Down