Prefer [foo][bar] over [foo](bar) for intra-doc links
#3191
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
MarijnS95
approved these changes
Oct 25, 2023
|
For reference: still waiting for some feedback in rust-lang/rust#117178. |
|
Apparently the conclusion was that there is no preference: rust-lang/rust#121021. I also double checked and AFAICT Rustdoc will properly generate an error regardless. So the only difference is that Personally I would still prefer |
daxpedda
force-pushed
the
intra-doc-links
branch
from
dff13da
to
daac3e2
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Follow-up to a discussion here: #3178 (comment).
The logic here is that
[foo](bar)can be used for inline links or intra-doc links, but[foo][bar]can be used for labels or intra-doc links, so if no label is present, it can only be a intra-doc link, making this less ambiguous and more robust to error check.