Replacing all references to the 2nd person with references to the 3rd
person (excluding `authors = [ "Your name <you@example.com>" ]` and
`file:///home/yourname/projects/hello_world` in `hello-cargo.md`)
This adds a chapter to the nightly section of the book on leveraging and
implementing the `#![allocator]` attribute to write custom allocators as well as
explaining the current situation with allocators.
I found these automatically, but fixed them manually to ensure the semantics are correct. I know things like these are hardly important, since they only marginally improve clarity. But at least for me typos and simple grammatical errors trigger an---unjustified---sense of unprofessionalism, despite the fact that I make them all the time and I understand that they're the sort of thing that is bound to slip through review.
Anyway, to find most of these I used:
* `ag '.*//.*(\b[A-Za-z]{2,}\b) \1\b'` for repeated words
* `ag '\b(the|this|those|these|a|it) (a|the|this|those|these|it)\b'` to find constructs like 'the this' etc. many false positives, but not too hard to scroll through them to actually find the mistakes.
* `cat ../../typos.txt | paste -d'|' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | tr '\n' '\0' | xargs -0 -P4 -n1 ag`. Hacky way to find misspellings, but it works ok. I got `typos.txt` from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists_of_common_misspellings/For_machines)
* `ag '.*//.* a ([ae][a-z]|(o[^n])|(i[a-rt-z]))'` to find places where 'a' was followed by a vowel (requiring 'an' instead).
I also used a handful more one off regexes that are too boring to reproduce here.
This adds a chapter to the nightly section of the book on leveraging and
implementing the `#![allocator]` attribute to write custom allocators as well as
explaining the current situation with allocators.
The diff can hopefully speak for itself. Regardless: this chapter of the book contained a sentence where "the" was mistakenly repeated twice. In this same section, there was a comma separating two sentences where a period should have been. This PR fixes both issues.
This is to address issue #28803 by improving some of the references to closures, to explain what they are more clearly, while hopefully still being concise.
r? @steveklabnik
The "Rust Inside Other Languages" page includes a library example. The
reference specifies printing "done!" when the code finishes running, and
the language examples (Ruby, Python, JS) all do this in their code.
However, the Rust library example code *also* does this, so that the
examples as written would output "done!" twice.
This removes the "done!" from the Rust example code to clarify the docs.
This is part of #28572, but doesn't complete it. Amongst other things,
this patch:
* Increases consistency in the way feature flags are used with other
docs.
* Removes the ignores, which is nice: we actually had some syntax errors
in the examples 😭.
* Mentions #![no_core]
Realistically, this document used to be in the order of least to most:
nothing, then adding core. But with the changes in RFC 1184, this is
backwards: it now shows stuff that uses core from the beginning. In the
future, I'd like to revamp this to go from 'most to least', but I'd like
to see the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27701
goes before I write more.
