Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix more typos found by codespell. #48275

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 18, 2018
Merged

Conversation

matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @eddyb (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Feb 16, 2018
@@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ impl<R: Seek> Seek for BufReader<R> {
/// where `n` minus the internal buffer length overflows an `i64`, two
/// seeks will be performed instead of one. If the second seek returns
/// `Err`, the underlying reader will be left at the same position it would
/// have if you seeked to `SeekFrom::Current(0)`.
/// have if you sought to `SeekFrom::Current(0)`.
Copy link
Member

@varkor varkor Feb 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I might prefer rewording this, as "seek time" is a noun, and it's confusing if it's used as a verb like this. I agree that "seeked" is incorrect, but finding a different verb to use would be preferable.

@varkor
Copy link
Member

varkor commented Feb 16, 2018

Apart from the one comment, all the corrections here look good to me!

@kennytm
Copy link
Member

kennytm commented Feb 16, 2018

@bors r+ rollup

Thanks!

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 16, 2018

📌 Commit 0a4cf97 has been approved by kennytm

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Feb 16, 2018
@kennytm
Copy link
Member

kennytm commented Feb 16, 2018

@bors r-

Oops missed @varkor's nit at #48275 (review)

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Feb 16, 2018
@@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ impl<R: Seek> Seek for BufReader<R> {
/// where `n` minus the internal buffer length overflows an `i64`, two
/// seeks will be performed instead of one. If the second seek returns
/// `Err`, the underlying reader will be left at the same position it would
/// have if you seeked to `SeekFrom::Current(0)`.
/// have if you had gotten to `SeekFrom::Current(0)`.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cc @varkor

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, didn't spot the change! I think something like: /// have if you called `seek` with `SeekFrom::Current(0)`. would be more clear, as it describes the intention (seeking to SeekFrom::Current(0)), rather than the implementation's behaviour.

@@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ impl<R: Seek> Seek for BufReader<R> {
/// where `n` minus the internal buffer length overflows an `i64`, two
/// seeks will be performed instead of one. If the second seek returns
/// `Err`, the underlying reader will be left at the same position it would
/// have if you seeked to `SeekFrom::Current(0)`.
/// have if you called `seek` with `SeekFrom::Current(0)`.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thanks, updated

@varkor
Copy link
Member

varkor commented Feb 17, 2018

Looks good to me! Thanks @matthiaskrgr!

@kennytm
Copy link
Member

kennytm commented Feb 17, 2018

@bors r=kennytm,varkor

Thanks again!

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 17, 2018

📌 Commit 4452446 has been approved by kennytm,varkor

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Feb 17, 2018
GuillaumeGomez added a commit to GuillaumeGomez/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 17, 2018
…arkor

fix more typos found by codespell.
GuillaumeGomez added a commit to GuillaumeGomez/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 18, 2018
…arkor

fix more typos found by codespell.
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 18, 2018
Rollup of 6 pull requests

- Successful merges: #48194, #48273, #48274, #48275, #48282, #48312
- Failed merges:
@bors bors merged commit 4452446 into rust-lang:master Feb 18, 2018
@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr deleted the codespell branch March 6, 2018 08:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants