f79ef02e4b
Add `field@` and `variant@` doc-link disambiguators I'm not sure if this is big enough to need an fcp or not, but this is something I found missing when trying to refer to a field in macro-generated docs, not knowing if a method might be defined as well. Obviously, there are definitely other uses. In the case where it's not disambiguated, methods (and I suppose other associated items in the value namespace) still take priority, which `@jyn514` said was an oversight but I think is probably the desired behavior 99% of the time anyway - shadowing a field with an accessor method is a very common pattern. If fields and methods with the same name started conflicting, it would be a breaking change. Though, to quote them: > jyn: maybe you can break this only if both [the method and the field] are public > jyn: rustc has some future-incompat warning level > jyn: that gets through -A warnings and --cap-lints from cargo That'd be out of scope of this PR, though. Fixes #80283 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| src | ||
| .gitignore | ||
| book.toml | ||
| README.md | ||
Rustdoc
This is documentation for rustdoc itself, written in mdbook format.
To build the book, use x.py doc src/doc/rustdoc.
To run doctests, use x.py test src/doc/rustdoc.