Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
remove reference to Into in ? operator core/std docs, fix #111655 - #112141
Conversation
rustbot
commented
May 31, 2023
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @thomcc (or someone else) soon. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (
|
thomcc
commented
Jun 1, 2023
Seems fine. In principal we might want to keep the option of changing to Into open, but I figure we could just adjust the docs then, since it would be a strict superset. This more accurately describes the status quo, so I don't see a reason not to document it. @bors r+ rollup |
bors
commented
Jun 1, 2023
…=thomcc remove reference to Into in ? operator core/std docs, fixrust-lang#111655 remove the text stating that `?` uses `Into::into` and add text stating it uses `From::from` instead. This closesrust-lang#111655.
Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#108459 (rustdoc: Fix LinkReplacer link matching) - rust-lang#111318 (Add a distinct `OperandValue::ZeroSized` variant for ZSTs) - rust-lang#111892 (rustdoc: add interaction delays for tooltip popovers) - rust-lang#111980 (Preserve substs in opaques recorded in typeck results) - rust-lang#112024 (Don't suggest break through nested items) - rust-lang#112128 (Don't compute inlining status of mono items in advance.) - rust-lang#112141 (remove reference to Into in ? operator core/std docs, fixrust-lang#111655) Failed merges: - rust-lang#112071 (Group rfcs tests) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
remove the text stating that
?usesInto::intoand add text stating it usesFrom::frominstead. This closes#111655.