Location
Documentation for FromResidual::from_residual
Summary
As part of #87445, the following part of the documentation for FromResidual::from_residual:
/// This should be implemented consistently with the `branch` method such
/// that applying the `?` operator will get back an equivalent residual:
/// `FromResidual::from_residual(r).branch() --> ControlFlow::Break(r)`.
/// (It may not be an *identical* residual when interconversion is involved.)
was changed to (change in bold):
/// This should be implemented consistently with the `branch` method such
/// that applying the `?` operator will get back an equivalent residual:
/// `FromResidual::from_residual(r).branch() --> ControlFlow::Break(r)`.
/// (It must not be an *identical* residual when interconversion is involved.)
The parenthetical now appears to state that the residual is not permitted to be identical when interconversion is involved (i.e., it must be different in some way). However, I believe the intention of the original wording was to convey that the residual is not required to be identical when interconversion is involved, which makes more sense contextually. I believe the emphasis on the word “identical” also supports this interpretation.
I propose that “must not” be changed to “need not”, “is not required to”, “does not have to”, or similar. Even “might not”, the other alternative in #87445, would be closer.
Location
Documentation for
FromResidual::from_residualSummary
As part of #87445, the following part of the documentation for
FromResidual::from_residual:was changed to (change in bold):
The parenthetical now appears to state that the residual is not permitted to be identical when interconversion is involved (i.e., it must be different in some way). However, I believe the intention of the original wording was to convey that the residual is not required to be identical when interconversion is involved, which makes more sense contextually. I believe the emphasis on the word “identical” also supports this interpretation.
I propose that “must not” be changed to “need not”, “is not required to”, “does not have to”, or similar. Even “might not”, the other alternative in #87445, would be closer.