docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments #146136
+7
−2
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Portable SIMD is developed in its own repository. If possible, consider making this change to rust-lang/portable-simd instead. |
|
Seems like the changes to |
|
This is a pretty harmless change to merge straight to rust-lang/rust, no need to do it in the portable-simd repo separately |
tgross35
approved these changes
Sep 2, 2025
|
Thank you! |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
tgross35
added a commit
to tgross35/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2025
…g-code-block-fences, r=tgross35 docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments This PR adds a few closing code block fences which I believe are missing in some doc comments. It seems that rustdoc just autocloses code blocks at the end of doc comments and thus these were easily overlooked: I do not think these code blocks are special in any way. I found these when working on a Clippy lint that checks the last sentence of doc comments for terminal punctuation, and these were failing cases when testing against the std. Therefore I am not entirely sure these are all such cases, but still have high hopes that they are (or at least a well-defined subset of them).
tgross35
added a commit
to tgross35/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2025
…g-code-block-fences, r=tgross35 docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments This PR adds a few closing code block fences which I believe are missing in some doc comments. It seems that rustdoc just autocloses code blocks at the end of doc comments and thus these were easily overlooked: I do not think these code blocks are special in any way. I found these when working on a Clippy lint that checks the last sentence of doc comments for terminal punctuation, and these were failing cases when testing against the std. Therefore I am not entirely sure these are all such cases, but still have high hopes that they are (or at least a well-defined subset of them).
jhpratt
added a commit
to jhpratt/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2025
…g-code-block-fences, r=tgross35 docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments This PR adds a few closing code block fences which I believe are missing in some doc comments. It seems that rustdoc just autocloses code blocks at the end of doc comments and thus these were easily overlooked: I do not think these code blocks are special in any way. I found these when working on a Clippy lint that checks the last sentence of doc comments for terminal punctuation, and these were failing cases when testing against the std. Therefore I am not entirely sure these are all such cases, but still have high hopes that they are (or at least a well-defined subset of them).
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2025
Rollup of 15 pull requests Successful merges: - #143725 (core: add Peekable::next_if_map) - #145209 (Stabilize `path_add_extension`) - #145750 (raw_vec.rs: Remove superfluous fn alloc_guard) - #145962 (Ensure we emit an allocator shim when only some crate types need one) - #145963 (Add LSX accelerated implementation for source file analysis) - #146054 (add `#[must_use]` to `array::repeat`) - #146090 (Derive `PartialEq` for `InvisibleOrigin`) - #146120 (Correct typo in `rustc_errors` comment) - #146127 (Rename `ToolRustc` to `ToolRustcPrivate`) - #146131 (rustdoc-search: add test case for indexing every item type) - #146133 (Revert "Make `lto` and `linker-plugin-lto` work the same for `compiler_builtins`) - #146134 (llvm: nvptx: Layout update to match LLVM) - #146136 (docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments) - #146137 (Disallow frontmatter in `--cfg` and `--check-cfg` arguments) - #146140 (compiletest: cygwin follows windows in using PATH for dynamic libraries) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Zalathar
added a commit
to Zalathar/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2025
…g-code-block-fences, r=tgross35 docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments This PR adds a few closing code block fences which I believe are missing in some doc comments. It seems that rustdoc just autocloses code blocks at the end of doc comments and thus these were easily overlooked: I do not think these code blocks are special in any way. I found these when working on a Clippy lint that checks the last sentence of doc comments for terminal punctuation, and these were failing cases when testing against the std. Therefore I am not entirely sure these are all such cases, but still have high hopes that they are (or at least a well-defined subset of them).
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2025
Rollup of 16 pull requests Successful merges: - #143725 (core: add Peekable::next_if_map) - #145209 (Stabilize `path_add_extension`) - #145342 (fix drop scope for `super let` bindings within `if let`) - #145750 (raw_vec.rs: Remove superfluous fn alloc_guard) - #145962 (Ensure we emit an allocator shim when only some crate types need one) - #145963 (Add LSX accelerated implementation for source file analysis) - #146054 (add `#[must_use]` to `array::repeat`) - #146090 (Derive `PartialEq` for `InvisibleOrigin`) - #146120 (Correct typo in `rustc_errors` comment) - #146127 (Rename `ToolRustc` to `ToolRustcPrivate`) - #146133 (Revert "Make `lto` and `linker-plugin-lto` work the same for `compiler_builtins`) - #146134 (llvm: nvptx: Layout update to match LLVM) - #146136 (docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments) - #146137 (Disallow frontmatter in `--cfg` and `--check-cfg` arguments) - #146140 (compiletest: cygwin follows windows in using PATH for dynamic libraries) - #146156 (miri subtree update) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
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.
This PR adds a few closing code block fences which I believe are missing in some doc comments. It seems that rustdoc just autocloses code blocks at the end of doc comments and thus these were easily overlooked: I do not think these code blocks are special in any way.
I found these when working on a Clippy lint that checks the last sentence of doc comments for terminal punctuation, and these were failing cases when testing against the std. Therefore I am not entirely sure these are all such cases, but still have high hopes that they are (or at least a well-defined subset of them).