Skip to content
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

docs(LazyLock): add example pass local LazyLock variable to struct #114043

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 25, 2023

Conversation

cathaysia
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 25, 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 (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

  • @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
  • @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

@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 Jul 25, 2023
@cathaysia
Copy link
Contributor Author

It should make sense to add such an example. This prevents pointless debugging due to type deduction issues.

@thomcc
Copy link
Member

thomcc commented Jul 25, 2023

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 25, 2023

📌 Commit 40dd5a3 has been approved by thomcc

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 25, 2023
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 25, 2023
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 7 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#114008 (coverage: Obtain the `__llvm_covfun` section name outside a per-function loop)
 - rust-lang#114014 (builtin_macros: expect raw strings too)
 - rust-lang#114043 (docs(LazyLock): add example pass local LazyLock variable to struct)
 - rust-lang#114051 (Add regression test for invalid "unused const" in method)
 - rust-lang#114052 (Suggest `{Option,Result}::as_ref()` instead of `cloned()` in some cases)
 - rust-lang#114058 (Add help for crate arg when crate name is invalid)
 - rust-lang#114060 (abi: unsized field in union - assert to delay bug )

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 91d1d7a into rust-lang:master Jul 25, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.73.0 milestone Jul 25, 2023
flip1995 pushed a commit to flip1995/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2023
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 7 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#114008 (coverage: Obtain the `__llvm_covfun` section name outside a per-function loop)
 - rust-lang#114014 (builtin_macros: expect raw strings too)
 - rust-lang#114043 (docs(LazyLock): add example pass local LazyLock variable to struct)
 - rust-lang#114051 (Add regression test for invalid "unused const" in method)
 - rust-lang#114052 (Suggest `{Option,Result}::as_ref()` instead of `cloned()` in some cases)
 - rust-lang#114058 (Add help for crate arg when crate name is invalid)
 - rust-lang#114060 (abi: unsized field in union - assert to delay bug )

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. 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.

4 participants