Standardize on "re-export" rather than "reexport" #47404
Merged
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
carols10cents
added
A-docs
steveklabnik
approved these changes
Jan 15, 2018
r=me after tidy is happy |
kennytm
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
@bors r=steveklabnik |
|
📌 Commit e168aa3 has been approved by |
carols10cents
added
S-waiting-on-bors
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2018
… r=steveklabnik Standardize on "re-export" rather than "reexport" While working on the book with our editors, it was brought to our attention that we're not consistent with when we use "re-export" versus "reexport". For the book, we've decided (with our editors) to go with "re-export"; in prose, I think that looks better. In code, I'm fine with "reexport". However, the rustdoc generated section is currently "Reexports", so when we have a screenshot of generated documentation with the prose where we use "re-export", it's inconsistent. It's too late to fix this for the book because we're using 1.21.0 for the output in the book, and it's really only one spot so it's not a huge deal, but I'd like to advocate for changing the documentation header so that a future edition of the book can be consistent. The first commit here only changes the documentation section heading text and rustdoc documentation that references it. This is the commit that's most important to me. The second commit changes error messages and associated tests to also be consistent with the use of re-export. This is the next most important commit to me, but I could be argued out of this one because then it won't match code like the `macro_reexports` feature name, which ostensibly should change to `macro_re_exports` to be most consistent but I didn't want to change code. The last commit changes re-export anywhere else in prose: either in documentation comments or regular comments. This is least important as most of them aren't user-visible. Instances like these will likely sneak back in over time. I'm totally fine dropping this commit if anyone wants, but [the hobgoblins made me do it](http://www.bartleby.com/100/420.47.html) and it sets a good example. r? @steveklabnik
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2018
… r=steveklabnik Standardize on "re-export" rather than "reexport" While working on the book with our editors, it was brought to our attention that we're not consistent with when we use "re-export" versus "reexport". For the book, we've decided (with our editors) to go with "re-export"; in prose, I think that looks better. In code, I'm fine with "reexport". However, the rustdoc generated section is currently "Reexports", so when we have a screenshot of generated documentation with the prose where we use "re-export", it's inconsistent. It's too late to fix this for the book because we're using 1.21.0 for the output in the book, and it's really only one spot so it's not a huge deal, but I'd like to advocate for changing the documentation header so that a future edition of the book can be consistent. The first commit here only changes the documentation section heading text and rustdoc documentation that references it. This is the commit that's most important to me. The second commit changes error messages and associated tests to also be consistent with the use of re-export. This is the next most important commit to me, but I could be argued out of this one because then it won't match code like the `macro_reexports` feature name, which ostensibly should change to `macro_re_exports` to be most consistent but I didn't want to change code. The last commit changes re-export anywhere else in prose: either in documentation comments or regular comments. This is least important as most of them aren't user-visible. Instances like these will likely sneak back in over time. I'm totally fine dropping this commit if anyone wants, but [the hobgoblins made me do it](http://www.bartleby.com/100/420.47.html) and it sets a good example. r? @steveklabnik
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2018
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.
While working on the book with our editors, it was brought to our attention that we're not consistent with when we use "re-export" versus "reexport". For the book, we've decided (with our editors) to go with "re-export"; in prose, I think that looks better. In code, I'm fine with "reexport".
However, the rustdoc generated section is currently "Reexports", so when we have a screenshot of generated documentation with the prose where we use "re-export", it's inconsistent.
It's too late to fix this for the book because we're using 1.21.0 for the output in the book, and it's really only one spot so it's not a huge deal, but I'd like to advocate for changing the documentation header so that a future edition of the book can be consistent.
The first commit here only changes the documentation section heading text and rustdoc documentation that references it. This is the commit that's most important to me.
The second commit changes error messages and associated tests to also be consistent with the use of re-export. This is the next most important commit to me, but I could be argued out of this one because then it won't match code like the
macro_reexportsfeature name, which ostensibly should change tomacro_re_exportsto be most consistent but I didn't want to change code.The last commit changes re-export anywhere else in prose: either in documentation comments or regular comments. This is least important as most of them aren't user-visible. Instances like these will likely sneak back in over time. I'm totally fine dropping this commit if anyone wants, but the hobgoblins made me do it and it sets a good example.
r? @steveklabnik