Remove visible ANCHOR comments #2741
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Good eye! And thank you for trying to fix it, but it actually needed to be fixed a different way. My intention was that the body of the function be hidden, because I need to have something there to get our automated tests to pass but it's not relevant to the reader. It looks like I broke this trying to fix a different hack in eb60fed. |
helixbass
deleted the
ch14-02-publishing-to-crates-io-remove-visible-anchor-text
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There are currently visible
ANCHOR_END: here/ANCHOR: herecomments in "Publishing a Crate to Crates.io":This PR removes those comments entirely since it seems correct for that code listing to show the entire
kinds+utilsmodules and from a bit of reading I see thatANCHOR/ANCHOR_ENDwould be used to only show that subsection of the code snippet (also theANCHOR_ENDcomment currently precedes theANCHORcomment, so I don't think they'd be usable as-is anyway?)