-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
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
Conversation
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 Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed.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. |
The Travis failure looks legit here. |
05e078e
to
6bae76d
Compare
whoops. |
/// itself. | ||
/// Wrapping (modular) division. Computes `self / other`. | ||
/// This operation only makes sense on signed types. | ||
/// It is here for completeness only. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 :)
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) |
I'll just rebase after that PR, looks like just minor overlaps |
Sure, sounds good to me |
6bae76d
to
a2e7b7b
Compare
apparently there was no overlap |
a2e7b7b
to
84a5790
Compare
I changed the wording, this is ready now. |
So, I am confused here with how said coordination went or should go, so r? @alexcrichton |
r? @steveklabnik