document raw-addr-of operators #1001
Conversation
Done. |
ptr::addr_of documentation improvements While writing rust-lang/reference#1001 I figured I could also improve the docs here a bit.
ptr::addr_of documentation improvements While writing rust-lang/reference#1001 I figured I could also improve the docs here a bit.
src/expressions/operator-expr.md
Outdated
| ### Raw address-of operators | ||
|
|
||
| Related to the borrow operators are the raw address-of operators, which do not have first-class syntax, but are exposed via the macros `ptr::addr_of!(expr)` and `ptr::addr_of_mut!(expr)`. | ||
| Like with `&`/`&mut`, the expression is evaluated in place expression context. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"the expression" here refers to the expression passed to the macro, right? If so, can you name that expression something; perhaps "the referenced operand". Also if so, it needs to be added to the list of place expression contexts on expressions.md.
Also, the compare/contrast with borrowing expressions feels weird in the context of the reference. It would make sense in material teaching for the first time, but this isn't a first time reader's document.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"the expression" here refers to the expression passed to the macro, right? If so, can you name that expression something; perhaps "the referenced operand". Also if so, it needs to be added to the list of place expression contexts on expressions.md.
I did some editing here, please check.
Also, the compare/contrast with borrowing expressions feels weird in the context of the reference. It would make sense in material teaching for the first time, but this isn't a first time reader's document.
I feel like this also makes sense just to increase clarity of the document, no matter how much experience we assume the reader to have. Also note that currently, ### Raw address-of operators is a third-level header, so this is basically "part of" the borrow operator section. The operators are very similar to I felt it would make sense to treat them together, at least to some extend.
|
@Havvy I think I did all the changes you were asking for. |
|
This PR has been waiting for the next round of review for a while (and the feature it documents is now stable since many releases). How can we make progress? |
|
Can you resolve the conflict?
I don't feel super comfortable hitting the merge button as I am not very familiar with this. I'd feel better if someone on the lang team approved it. Perhaps @joshtriplett? |
Co-authored-by: Ryan Scheel <[email protected]>
|
@rust-lang/lang it's now been a year since the macros have been stabilized, might be good to also get the reference docs landed at some point. :D |
|
I believe all feedback has been addressed at this point. Merging. |
as requested by @Havvy
This is a bit unusual for being exposed as a library feature, fut it really is a fundamental language feature without stable syntax, which is stably accessible through the standard library.