mathieu/granite-rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

rollup merge of #19584: CaptainHayashi/patch-1

Browse source 
Substitutes 'lifetime' for 'liftime' in a few places.

Apologies if this has already been noticed/PRQed!  I did try to do due diligence, though 😀
This commit is contained in:
Alex Crichton 2014-12-09 09:24:42 -08:00
commit 6a652cfd1d
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
src/doc/guide-ownership.md
View file

@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ fn add_one(num: &int) -> int {
Rust has a feature called 'lifetime elision,' which allows you to not write
lifetime annotations in certain circumstances. This is one of them. Without
eliding the liftimes, `add_one` looks like this:
eliding the lifetimes, `add_one` looks like this:
```rust
fn add_one<'a>(num: &'a int) -> int {
@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ This part _declares_ our lifetimes. This says that `add_one` has one lifetime,
fn add_two<'a, 'b>(...)
```
Then in our parameter list, we use the liftimes we've named:
Then in our parameter list, we use the lifetimes we've named:
```{rust,ignore}
...(num: &'a int) -> ...
@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ fn main() {
}
```
As you can see, `struct`s can also have liftimes. In a similar way to functions,
As you can see, `struct`s can also have lifetimes. In a similar way to functions,
```{rust}
struct Foo<'a> {
@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ x: &'a int,
# }
```
uses it. So why do we need a liftime here? We need to ensure that any reference
uses it. So why do we need a lifetime here? We need to ensure that any reference
to a `Foo` cannot outlive the reference to an `int` it contains.
## Thinking in scopes