make commented examples use valid syntax, and be more consistent #73538
Conversation
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
This was purposely changed by #72382 |
|
@mati865 nice catch. I added a commit to explain more what's going on (after reading the code). That is, I'd rather we have valid syntax there, than have users experience a failing build (as I did). |
|
I agree that having the default values in the comments seems like a nice approach. |
|
I'm not sure who to loop in to get a broader range of opinions. Maybe @Mark-Simulacrum, @mark-i-m and @spastorino ? :) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So I feel that the values should all be sensible defaults that one can just uncomment to use, which I think is the intent of this PR.
Moreover, I feel like this PR would be complimented well by having a config.dev.toml that has reasonable default in it that people can just cp config.dev.toml config.toml and not have to look in the file at all.
config.toml.example
Outdated
| # | ||
| # Defaults to the Python interpreter used to execute x.py. | ||
| #python = "python" | ||
| #python = "python" # defaults to the Python interpreter used to execute x.py |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, that's true, it did seem to blend in to me.
|
I do like the idea of a config.toml.dev, but I guess it's a distinct PR perhaps. |
See rust-lang#73538 (comment) for the motivation
config.toml.example
Outdated
| # Defaults to rust.debug value | ||
| #debug-assertions-std = false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one defaults to debug-assertions and only indirectly to debug.
|
I like the approach of documenting to which value each thing defaults to but at the same time it seemed that that's what the previous code was doing already. I'm not sure what's the reason for the main change here like "examples should be of type bool". |
|
@spastorino I think the intent is that you should be able to just uncomment a line and it should work, which is not true today IIUC. |
|
I'm happy with this current version. |
|
(Though we should fix the problem @tmiasko noted) |
tshepang
changed the title
|
@spastorino the PR comment got obsolete with the iterations. I updated it now. |
|
should I squash the commits |
|
@bors r+ rollup Meh, I don't think squashing is necessary. |
|
📌 Commit b23baa7 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
make commented examples use valid syntax, and be more consistent
…arth Rollup of 14 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#72617 (Add a fast path for `std::thread::panicking`.) - rust-lang#72738 (Self contained linking option) - rust-lang#72770 (Implement mixed script confusable lint.) - rust-lang#73418 (Add unstable `core::mem::variant_count` intrinsic) - rust-lang#73460 (Emit line info for generator variants) - rust-lang#73534 (Provide suggestions for some moved value errors) - rust-lang#73538 (make commented examples use valid syntax, and be more consistent ) - rust-lang#73581 (Create 0766 error code) - rust-lang#73619 (Document the mod keyword) - rust-lang#73621 (Document the mut keyword) - rust-lang#73648 (Document the return keyword) - rust-lang#73673 (Fix ptr doc warnings.) - rust-lang#73674 (Tweak binop errors) - rust-lang#73687 (Clean up E0701 explanation) Failed merges: - rust-lang#73708 (Explain move errors that occur due to method calls involving `self` (take two)) r? @ghost
No description provided.