Slightly confusing text in cargo-targets.md

[tacertain]

cargo-targets.md contains the following text under Integration Tests:

Binary targets are automatically built if there is an integration test. This allows an integration test to execute the binary to exercise and test its behavior

I'm 99% sure that the "binary targets" references the cargo targets that are labeled with bin. However, given that this section is also talking about building binaries ("Each integration test results in a separate executable binary"), it's a little confusing. Also it's plural in the first sentence ("binary targets"), and singular in the second ("the binary").

Neither of these is a big deal, of course, but I stumbled for a moment on them, being very new to Rust.

[tacertain]

I would propose an edit, but I'm not sure what the best way to idiomatically clarify that "binary targets" refers to the ones specified in the bin sections as opposed to the binary targets inferred from the /tests directory.

[weihanglo]

Perhaps making the first occurrence of "Binary targets" a link to the previous "Binaries" helps?

[epage]

The relevant quotes about tests

Integration tests which is a separate executable binary,

Each integration test results in a separate executable binary,

[epage]

I think one aspect here is the distinction between cargo targets and crate types. The headers are for different kinds of cargo targets and there is one for binary targets. Binary targets are built for test targets which are of crate type binary. Example and bench targets are also of crate type binary.

Or in other words, all binary targets are binaries but not all binaries are binary targets.

The section describing tests just refers to them as binaries which would be referring to the crate type.

I'm unsure what to improve but I'm hoping that framing can help people come up with ideas.

[tacertain]

Perhaps making the first occurrence of "Binary targets" a link to the previous "Binaries" helps?

This certainly would have made it clear to me.

[weihanglo]

If that work, should we work towards that and resolve this. If some other confusions got brought up by others then create a new issue?