Skip to content

Fix grammar in 1.81.0 release #1400

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Fix grammar in 1.81.0 release #1400

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion posts/2024-09-05-Rust-1.81.0.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ requirements documented in [PartialOrd] and [Ord].
### `#[expect(lint)]`

1.81 stabilizes a new lint level, `expect`, which allows explicitly noting that
a particular lint *should* occur, and warning if it doesn't. The intended use
a particular lint *should* occur, and warn if it doesn't. The intended use
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we're going to not use the gerund here then it needs to agree with the singular "lint level".

Suggested change
a particular lint *should* occur, and warn if it doesn't. The intended use
a particular lint *should* occur, and warns if it doesn't. The intended use

i.e. "lint level, expect, which [...] warns if it doesn't"

Though I don't agree that this needs changing at all. Or at least this should be split into two separate sentences if it's ambiguous.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The "warn" is not marked because there's an auxiliary, "should".

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

IMO this way of phrasing it is weird, we’re saying this “allows explicitly noting that a particular lint […] warns if it [doesn’t occur]”

case for this is temporarily silencing a lint, whether due to lint
implementation bugs or ongoing refactoring, while wanting to know when the lint
is no longer required.
Expand Down