Fix in-band lifetimes example with backreferences #2485
Closed
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
Backreferences are listed as a "possible extension or alternative" in RFC rust-lang#2115, so the examples should not include them. This is further reinforced by commit c20ea6d, which appears to have been intended to remove all instances of backreferences in the examples, but missed these.
Centril
added
the
not-rfc
|
Fixed by #2486. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Backreferences are listed as a "possible extension or alternative" in RFC #2115, so the examples should not include them. This is further reinforced by commit c20ea6d, which appears to have been intended to remove all instances of backreferences in the examples, but missed these. (Note, in particular, that the commit removed the backreferences in the example in the Summary section, and the two lines fixed in this PR are identical to two of the lines changed in that commit.)
@dhardy also observed this issue.