Skip to content

Fix a typo in the Rust Book ownership page. #23629

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 25, 2015
Merged

Fix a typo in the Rust Book ownership page. #23629

merged 2 commits into from
Mar 25, 2015

Conversation

liammonahan
Copy link
Contributor

Found a small typo on the Rust book "ownership" page.

Best,
Liam

r? @steveklabnik

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @steveklabnik (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. The way Github handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed.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 CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

Hey Liam!

So, I can see how this sentence can be a tad confusing, but your edit doesn't exactly work either.

Here are some examples of functions with elided lifetimes, along with versions
of what the elided lifetimes expand to:

To me, this says that each example has multiple versions. What do you think about a re-word like this?

Here are some examples of functions with elided lifetimes. For each example, we show both the elided and expanded version.

@liammonahan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your feedback. I think we're having a disagreement about number. In your suggested sentence, if I took out "the elided and expanded", I would get:

For each example, we show both version.

Adding that enumeration shouldn't change the number of the word "versions." This is also the reason why I think my originally-proposed sentence was actually correct, but I'm fine to agree on the following before I commit:

Here are some examples of functions with elided lifetimes. For each example, we show both the elided and expanded versions.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

You took out words that matter though. 'both' refers to 'the elided version' and 'the expanded version,' but it's not considered good style to repeat yourself so often. If you take out one of the two things, of course it will sound strange!

I wonder if this is some sort of dialect issue. I'm fine with using versions, as your last comment suggests, though :)

@liammonahan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi Steve,

Usually I would have rolled over by this point, but in the spirit of the quote by Emma Goldman on your blog, I will persist. :) Taking out or adding "the elided and expanded" does not change the structure of the rest of the sentence. It merely specifies which versions are meant by "both." This is the only relevant stackexachange I could find on the topic: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/101332/both-the-first-and-the-last-plural-vs-both-the-first-and-the-last-singula

I'd like to come up with something that we can both agree on unequivocally, so how about this?

Here are some examples of functions with elided lifetimes. We've paired each example of an elided lifetime with its expanded form.

I'm sorry if this whole thread has come off as a little too pugnacious on my part. I really do admire the herculean documentation task that you've taken on as far as the Rust project is concerned. I think it's some of the best documentation out there.

Thanks,
Liam

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

Ha! ❤️

I'm fine with that last sentence.

@liammonahan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Good deal. It's all committed and ready for bors when you are.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

@bors: r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 24, 2015

📌 Commit 37dc801 has been approved by steveklabnik

alexcrichton added a commit to alexcrichton/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 24, 2015
Found a small typo on the Rust book "ownership" page.

Best,
Liam

r? @steveklabnik
@bors bors merged commit 37dc801 into rust-lang:master Mar 25, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants