OpenE2K/rust
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Change doc comment to code comment

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Guillaume Gomez 2017-07-03 00:27:36 +02:00
parent 7e70a63e61
commit b68a03bded
2 changed files with 21 additions and 21 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
src/librustc/middle/region.rs
View File

@ -458,10 +458,10 @@ impl<'tcx> RegionMaps {
-> CodeExtent {
if scope_a == scope_b { return scope_a; }
/// [1] The initial values for `a_buf` and `b_buf` are not used.
/// The `ancestors_of` function will return some prefix that
/// is re-initialized with new values (or else fallback to a
/// heap-allocated vector).
// [1] The initial values for `a_buf` and `b_buf` are not used.
// The `ancestors_of` function will return some prefix that
// is re-initialized with new values (or else fallback to a
// heap-allocated vector).
let mut a_buf: [CodeExtent; 32] = [scope_a /* [1] */; 32];
let mut a_vec: Vec<CodeExtent> = vec![];
let mut b_buf: [CodeExtent; 32] = [scope_b /* [1] */; 32];

34
src/librustc_typeck/check/wfcheck.rs
View File

@ -89,23 +89,23 @@ impl<'a, 'gcx> CheckTypeWellFormedVisitor<'a, 'gcx> {
tcx.item_path_str(tcx.hir.local_def_id(item.id)));
match item.node {
/// Right now we check that every default trait implementation
/// has an implementation of itself. Basically, a case like:
///
/// `impl Trait for T {}`
///
/// has a requirement of `T: Trait` which was required for default
/// method implementations. Although this could be improved now that
/// there's a better infrastructure in place for this, it's being left
/// for a follow-up work.
///
/// Since there's such a requirement, we need to check *just* positive
/// implementations, otherwise things like:
///
/// impl !Send for T {}
///
/// won't be allowed unless there's an *explicit* implementation of `Send`
/// for `T`
// Right now we check that every default trait implementation
// has an implementation of itself. Basically, a case like:
//
// `impl Trait for T {}`
//
// has a requirement of `T: Trait` which was required for default
// method implementations. Although this could be improved now that
// there's a better infrastructure in place for this, it's being left
// for a follow-up work.
//
// Since there's such a requirement, we need to check *just* positive
// implementations, otherwise things like:
//
// impl !Send for T {}
//
// won't be allowed unless there's an *explicit* implementation of `Send`
// for `T`
hir::ItemImpl(_, hir::ImplPolarity::Positive, _, _,
ref trait_ref, ref self_ty, _) => {
self.check_impl(item, self_ty, trait_ref);