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

Documentation for Clone lists incorrect implementation definitions #26384

Closed
Nashenas88 opened this issue Jun 18, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

Documentation for Clone lists incorrect implementation definitions #26384

Nashenas88 opened this issue Jun 18, 2015 · 4 comments
Labels
T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@Nashenas88
Copy link
Contributor

The documentation for Clone states that the first implementor is Wrapping:
impl<T> Clone for Wrapping<T> where T:_Clone + Clone_

Range is even more interesting:
impl<Idx> Clone for Range<Idx> where Idx:_Clone + Clone + Clone_

I would think that these should be documented as impl<T> Clone for Wrapping<T> where T: Clone and impl<Idx> Clone for Range<Idx> where Idx: Clone, respectively.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

I believe this is a duplicate, but can't quite find it.

It's certianly something strange with Clone.

@steveklabnik steveklabnik added the T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Jun 18, 2015
@Aatch
Copy link
Contributor

Aatch commented Jun 18, 2015

@steveklabnik this seems like 3 issues, really:

  1. Deriving produces duplicate bounds.
  2. The compiler doesn't de-duplicate them later.
  3. Rustdoc doesn't de-duplicate them.

Ideally, the deriving code shouldn't be generating the duplicates (and conversion with @huonw suggests that it's just left-over code from an experiment with a different deriving technique). The other two cases would be nice to fix too though.

@Nashenas88
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry, I accidentally clicked "close" instead of "cancel". @steveklabnik, I also thought it would be a duplicate, but I spent quite some time searching for an existing one with no luck. I filed it in case it was one of those where everyone thought it was filed, but wasn't.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

I think the dupe we're searching for is #25022, so closing in favor of that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants