Skip to content

Docs(lib): Fix extract_if docs #141108

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

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

PaulDance
Copy link
Contributor

@PaulDance PaulDance commented May 17, 2025

Various fixes to the documentation comments of the several extract_if collection methods available. It originally started with a small typo fix in Vec's spotted when reading the 1.87 release notes, but then by looking at the others' for comparison in order to try determining what was the intended sentence, some inconsistencies were spotted. Therefore, some other changes are also proposed here to reduce these avoidable differences, going more and more nit-picky along the way. See the individual commits for more details about each change.

PaulDance added 7 commits May 17, 2025 02:09
…tence

As inspired by the equivalent methods from other collection types.

Signed-off-by: Paul Mabileau <[email protected]>
…alue`

A minor change, but it seemed interesting to unify this one's
description, especially considering all the other equivalents use
`element` as well.

Signed-off-by: Paul Mabileau <[email protected]>
…owing ones

This also seems like a small mistake: the first main sentence is put in
the same paragraph as the other two following ones while other
equivalents all have it split. Therefore, do the same here.

Signed-off-by: Paul Mabileau <[email protected]>
Also fixes `HashSet`'s that incorrectly designated itself as a `list`.

Signed-off-by: Paul Mabileau <[email protected]>
Take the one from `BTreeMap` that seems the best-worded and most
precise among the available variations.

Signed-off-by: Paul Mabileau <[email protected]>
Make it consistent in this regard with `BTreeMap`'s.

Signed-off-by: Paul Mabileau <[email protected]>
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 17, 2025

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels May 17, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants