Rollup merge of #25257 - dpetersen:mutability-docfix, r=steveklabnik

I think there's a trivial missing word in the Mutability document. I reformatted the resulting paragraph in vim, which seems to match what the rest of the document is doing as far as word wrapping.

Edit: I found another minor thing as I continued reading.

P.S. I'm re-reading the docs, since so much has changed since my first read, and they've gotten even better! Nice job!

r? @steveklabnik
This commit is contained in:
Steve Klabnik 2015-05-10 16:44:23 -04:00
commit 7ae332c39f
2 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions

View File

@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ side of a `let` binding or directly where an expression is used:
```rust
let x = 5;
let numer = match x {
let number = match x {
1 => "one",
2 => "two",
3 => "three",

View File

@ -78,8 +78,8 @@ When we call `clone()`, the `Arc<T>` needs to update the reference count. Yet
weve not used any `mut`s here, `x` is an immutable binding, and we didnt take
`&mut 5` or anything. So what gives?
To this, we have to go back to the core of Rusts guiding philosophy, memory
safety, and the mechanism by which Rust guarantees it, the
To understand this, we have to go back to the core of Rusts guiding
philosophy, memory safety, and the mechanism by which Rust guarantees it, the
[ownership][ownership] system, and more specifically, [borrowing][borrowing]:
> You may have one or the other of these two kinds of borrows, but not both at