-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.7k
docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments #146136
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
Merged
bors
merged 1 commit into
rust-lang:master
from
AudaciousAxiom:docs/missing-closing-code-block-fences
Sep 4, 2025
Merged
docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments #146136
bors
merged 1 commit into
rust-lang:master
from
AudaciousAxiom:docs/missing-closing-code-block-fences
Sep 4, 2025
+7
−2
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
@rustbot
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
T-libs
Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
labels
Sep 2, 2025
Portable SIMD is developed in its own repository. If possible, consider making this change to rust-lang/portable-simd instead.
Seems like the changes to library/portable-simd should be done in rust-lang/portable-simd instead. I'll try to find to find some time for that tomorrow.
This is a pretty harmless change to merge straight to rust-lang/rust, no need to do it in the portable-simd repo separately
tgross35
tgross35
approved these changes
Sep 2, 2025
Thank you!
r? tgross35
@bors r+ rollup
@bors
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
and removed
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
labels
Sep 2, 2025
tgross35
added a commit
to tgross35/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2025
...g-code-block-fences, r=tgross35 docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments This PR adds a few closing code block fences which I believe are missing in some doc comments. It seems that rustdoc just autocloses code blocks at the end of doc comments and thus these were easily overlooked: I do not think these code blocks are special in any way. I found these when working on a Clippy lint that checks the last sentence of doc comments for terminal punctuation, and these were failing cases when testing against the std. Therefore I am not entirely sure these are all such cases, but still have high hopes that they are (or at least a well-defined subset of them).
tgross35
added a commit
to tgross35/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2025
...g-code-block-fences, r=tgross35 docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments This PR adds a few closing code block fences which I believe are missing in some doc comments. It seems that rustdoc just autocloses code blocks at the end of doc comments and thus these were easily overlooked: I do not think these code blocks are special in any way. I found these when working on a Clippy lint that checks the last sentence of doc comments for terminal punctuation, and these were failing cases when testing against the std. Therefore I am not entirely sure these are all such cases, but still have high hopes that they are (or at least a well-defined subset of them).
jhpratt
added a commit
to jhpratt/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2025
...g-code-block-fences, r=tgross35 docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments This PR adds a few closing code block fences which I believe are missing in some doc comments. It seems that rustdoc just autocloses code blocks at the end of doc comments and thus these were easily overlooked: I do not think these code blocks are special in any way. I found these when working on a Clippy lint that checks the last sentence of doc comments for terminal punctuation, and these were failing cases when testing against the std. Therefore I am not entirely sure these are all such cases, but still have high hopes that they are (or at least a well-defined subset of them).
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2025
Rollup of 15 pull requests Successful merges: - #143725 (core: add Peekable::next_if_map) - #145209 (Stabilize `path_add_extension`) - #145750 (raw_vec.rs: Remove superfluous fn alloc_guard) - #145962 (Ensure we emit an allocator shim when only some crate types need one) - #145963 (Add LSX accelerated implementation for source file analysis) - #146054 (add `#[must_use]` to `array::repeat`) - #146090 (Derive `PartialEq` for `InvisibleOrigin`) - #146120 (Correct typo in `rustc_errors` comment) - #146127 (Rename `ToolRustc` to `ToolRustcPrivate`) - #146131 (rustdoc-search: add test case for indexing every item type) - #146133 (Revert "Make `lto` and `linker-plugin-lto` work the same for `compiler_builtins`) - #146134 (llvm: nvptx: Layout update to match LLVM) - #146136 (docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments) - #146137 (Disallow frontmatter in `--cfg` and `--check-cfg` arguments) - #146140 (compiletest: cygwin follows windows in using PATH for dynamic libraries) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Zalathar
added a commit
to Zalathar/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2025
...g-code-block-fences, r=tgross35 docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments This PR adds a few closing code block fences which I believe are missing in some doc comments. It seems that rustdoc just autocloses code blocks at the end of doc comments and thus these were easily overlooked: I do not think these code blocks are special in any way. I found these when working on a Clippy lint that checks the last sentence of doc comments for terminal punctuation, and these were failing cases when testing against the std. Therefore I am not entirely sure these are all such cases, but still have high hopes that they are (or at least a well-defined subset of them).
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2025
Rollup of 16 pull requests Successful merges: - #143725 (core: add Peekable::next_if_map) - #145209 (Stabilize `path_add_extension`) - #145342 (fix drop scope for `super let` bindings within `if let`) - #145750 (raw_vec.rs: Remove superfluous fn alloc_guard) - #145962 (Ensure we emit an allocator shim when only some crate types need one) - #145963 (Add LSX accelerated implementation for source file analysis) - #146054 (add `#[must_use]` to `array::repeat`) - #146090 (Derive `PartialEq` for `InvisibleOrigin`) - #146120 (Correct typo in `rustc_errors` comment) - #146127 (Rename `ToolRustc` to `ToolRustcPrivate`) - #146133 (Revert "Make `lto` and `linker-plugin-lto` work the same for `compiler_builtins`) - #146134 (llvm: nvptx: Layout update to match LLVM) - #146136 (docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments) - #146137 (Disallow frontmatter in `--cfg` and `--check-cfg` arguments) - #146140 (compiletest: cygwin follows windows in using PATH for dynamic libraries) - #146156 (miri subtree update) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 4, 2025
Rollup of 24 pull requests Successful merges: - #140459 (Add `read_buf` equivalents for positioned reads) - #143725 (core: add Peekable::next_if_map) - #145209 (Stabilize `path_add_extension`) - #145342 (fix drop scope for `super let` bindings within `if let`) - #145750 (raw_vec.rs: Remove superfluous fn alloc_guard) - #145827 (On unused binding or binding not present in all patterns, suggest potential typo of unit struct/variant or const) - #145932 (Allow `inline(always)` with a target feature behind a unstable feature `target_feature_inline_always`.) - #145962 (Ensure we emit an allocator shim when only some crate types need one) - #145963 (Add LSX accelerated implementation for source file analysis) - #146054 (add `#[must_use]` to `array::repeat`) - #146090 (Derive `PartialEq` for `InvisibleOrigin`) - #146112 (don't uppercase error messages) - #146120 (Correct typo in `rustc_errors` comment) - #146124 (Test `rustc-dev` in `distcheck`) - #146127 (Rename `ToolRustc` to `ToolRustcPrivate`) - #146131 (rustdoc-search: add test case for indexing every item type) - #146134 (llvm: nvptx: Layout update to match LLVM) - #146136 (docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments) - #146137 (Disallow frontmatter in `--cfg` and `--check-cfg` arguments) - #146140 (compiletest: cygwin follows windows in using PATH for dynamic libraries) - #146150 (fix(rustdoc): match rustc `--emit` precedence ) - #146155 (Make bootstrap self test parallel) - #146161 ([rustdoc] Uncomment code to add scraped rustdoc examples in loaded paths) - #146172 (triagebot: configure some pings when certain attributes are used) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 4, 2025
Rollup merge of #146136 - AudaciousAxiom:docs/missing-closing-code-block-fences, r=tgross35 docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments This PR adds a few closing code block fences which I believe are missing in some doc comments. It seems that rustdoc just autocloses code blocks at the end of doc comments and thus these were easily overlooked: I do not think these code blocks are special in any way. I found these when working on a Clippy lint that checks the last sentence of doc comments for terminal punctuation, and these were failing cases when testing against the std. Therefore I am not entirely sure these are all such cases, but still have high hopes that they are (or at least a well-defined subset of them).
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/miri
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 5, 2025
Rollup of 24 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang/rust#140459 (Add `read_buf` equivalents for positioned reads) - rust-lang/rust#143725 (core: add Peekable::next_if_map) - rust-lang/rust#145209 (Stabilize `path_add_extension`) - rust-lang/rust#145342 (fix drop scope for `super let` bindings within `if let`) - rust-lang/rust#145750 (raw_vec.rs: Remove superfluous fn alloc_guard) - rust-lang/rust#145827 (On unused binding or binding not present in all patterns, suggest potential typo of unit struct/variant or const) - rust-lang/rust#145932 (Allow `inline(always)` with a target feature behind a unstable feature `target_feature_inline_always`.) - rust-lang/rust#145962 (Ensure we emit an allocator shim when only some crate types need one) - rust-lang/rust#145963 (Add LSX accelerated implementation for source file analysis) - rust-lang/rust#146054 (add `#[must_use]` to `array::repeat`) - rust-lang/rust#146090 (Derive `PartialEq` for `InvisibleOrigin`) - rust-lang/rust#146112 (don't uppercase error messages) - rust-lang/rust#146120 (Correct typo in `rustc_errors` comment) - rust-lang/rust#146124 (Test `rustc-dev` in `distcheck`) - rust-lang/rust#146127 (Rename `ToolRustc` to `ToolRustcPrivate`) - rust-lang/rust#146131 (rustdoc-search: add test case for indexing every item type) - rust-lang/rust#146134 (llvm: nvptx: Layout update to match LLVM) - rust-lang/rust#146136 (docs(std): add missing closing code block fences in doc comments) - rust-lang/rust#146137 (Disallow frontmatter in `--cfg` and `--check-cfg` arguments) - rust-lang/rust#146140 (compiletest: cygwin follows windows in using PATH for dynamic libraries) - rust-lang/rust#146150 (fix(rustdoc): match rustc `--emit` precedence ) - rust-lang/rust#146155 (Make bootstrap self test parallel) - rust-lang/rust#146161 ([rustdoc] Uncomment code to add scraped rustdoc examples in loaded paths) - rust-lang/rust#146172 (triagebot: configure some pings when certain attributes are used) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
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.
This PR adds a few closing code block fences which I believe are missing in some doc comments. It seems that rustdoc just autocloses code blocks at the end of doc comments and thus these were easily overlooked: I do not think these code blocks are special in any way.
I found these when working on a Clippy lint that checks the last sentence of doc comments for terminal punctuation, and these were failing cases when testing against the std. Therefore I am not entirely sure these are all such cases, but still have high hopes that they are (or at least a well-defined subset of them).