TRPL: ownership, borrowing, and lifetimes #24782
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| The `'a` reads ‘the lifetime a’. Technically, every reference has some `'foo` | ||
| associated with it, but the compiler lets you elide them in common cases. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you mean "every reference has some lifetime associated with it"?
|
Nits addressed. |
17fbdda to
2b30cc6
Compare
| Rust has a focus on safety and speed. It accomplishes these goals through many | ||
| ‘zero-cost abstractions’, which means that in Rust, abstractions cost as little | ||
| as possible in order to make them work. The ownership system is a prime example | ||
| of a zero cost abstraction. All of the analysis we’ll talk about in this guide |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
s/zero cost abstraction/zero-cost abstraction/
|
@steveklabnik r+ from me. I read it over and mostly thought it seemed good. There are some details (like returning references, notably) that are not really covered, perhaps those are better left to specific guides though. |
|
I agree with the missing |
Also, as @huonw guessed, move semantics really _does_ make more sense as a sub-chapter of ownership.
2b30cc6 to
ab3cb8c
Compare
|
@bors: r=nikomatsakis rollup |
|
📌 Commit ab3cb8c has been approved by |
|
Yeah, adding more complicated stuff in the future is certainly important. |
steveklabnik
added a commit
to steveklabnik/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2015
…atsakis Also, as @huonw guessed, move semantics really _does_ make more sense as a sub-chapter of ownership.
steveklabnik
added a commit
to steveklabnik/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2015
…atsakis Also, as @huonw guessed, move semantics really _does_ make more sense as a sub-chapter of ownership.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Also, as @huonw guessed, move semantics really does make more sense as
a sub-chapter of ownership.