Change the placement of two functions. #63045
Merged
+43
−43
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
|
r? @aidanhs (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Right now, the order is as follows: `pop_front()` `push_front()` `push_back()` `pop_back()` `swap_remove_back()` `swap_remove_front()` I believe it would be more natural, and easier to follow, if we place `pop_back()` right after the `pop_front()`, and `swap_remove_back()` after the `swap_remove_front()` like this: `pop_front()` `pop_back()` `push_front()` `push_back()` `swap_remove_front()` `swap_remove_back()` The rest of the documentation (at least in this module) adheres to the same logic, where the 'front' function always precedes its 'back' equivalent.
tomasz-rozanski
changed the title
|
Ping from triage: @aidanhs, waiting on your review. |
|
Ping from triage: @aidanhs, any update on the review? |
|
Makes sense to me, thanks for the PR! @bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 98c50eb has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 18, 2019
Change the placement of two functions. Right now, the order is as follows: `pop_front()` `push_front()` `push_back()` `pop_back()` `swap_remove_back()` `swap_remove_front()` I believe it would be more natural, and easier to follow, if we place `pop_back()` right after the `pop_front()`, and `swap_remove_back()` after the `swap_remove_front()` like this: `pop_front()` `pop_back()` `push_front()` `push_back()` `swap_remove_front()` `swap_remove_back()` The rest of the documentation (at least in this module) adheres to the same logic, where the 'front' function always precedes its 'back' equivalent.
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-azure |
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.
Right now, the order is as follows:
pop_front()push_front()push_back()pop_back()swap_remove_back()swap_remove_front()I believe it would be more natural, and easier to follow, if we place
pop_back()right after thepop_front(), andswap_remove_back()after theswap_remove_front()like this:pop_front()pop_back()push_front()push_back()swap_remove_front()swap_remove_back()The rest of the documentation (at least in this module) adheres to the same logic, where the 'front' function always precedes its 'back' equivalent.