Skip to content

fix the docs and simplify the implementation of unsigned wrapping ops #30820

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 20, 2016

Conversation

oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

@oli-obk oli-obk commented Jan 11, 2016

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @steveklabnik (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

The Travis failure looks legit here.

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Jan 11, 2016

whoops. check-doc now passes locally.

/// itself.
/// Wrapping (modular) division. Computes `self / other`.
/// This operation only makes sense on signed types.
/// It is here for completeness only.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This comment makes no sense to me, why is it 'complete' to include something that doesn't make sense?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yea, I should probably word that differently. Wrapped division on unsigned types is just normal division. There's no way wrapping could ever happen. So this function is here, so all operations are accounted for in the wrapping operations.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, that sounds very reasonable, gotta find a better way to say that :)

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

We may want to coordinate with #30466, looks like these are all touching similar surface area?

(I'll try to get around to rebasing and approving that today or tomorrow)

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Jan 12, 2016

I'll just rebase after that PR, looks like just minor overlaps

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Sure, sounds good to me

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Jan 14, 2016

apparently there was no overlap

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Jan 19, 2016

I changed the wording, this is ready now.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

So, I am confused here with how said coordination went or should go, so r? @alexcrichton

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

@bors: r+ 84a5790

Thanks!

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 19, 2016

⌛ Testing commit 84a5790 with merge 2bd875d...

@bors bors merged commit 84a5790 into rust-lang:master Jan 20, 2016
@oli-obk oli-obk deleted the docs/wrapping_ops branch January 20, 2016 08:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants