3 ms·
So you're open to any suggestion except one which changes what you wrote? If the documentation claims that unsafe rust introduces new types, then it is wrong.
by svrb 6y ago
So you're open to any suggestion except one which changes what you wrote?
If the documentation claims that unsafe rust introduces new types, then it is wrong. It is demonstrably false. You can literally fire up a text editor and disprove this in about 15 seconds (if you're a slow typist).
As someone holding themselves out to be a teacher you have a responsibility to fact-check like that, if not from the beginning, at least when informed that there's a mistake. Adding to the volume of incorrect documentation instead of fixing it can only come from a desire to be (rather to seem) right and be recognized rather from a sincere desire to actually teach and assist.
- rcvalle 6y agoYou're assuming that because you can create raw pointers in safe code, they were not introduced because or belong to Unsafe Rust, which is an incorrect assumption. If you still think that both my contribution and the official documentation are incorrect, you're welcome to start a discussion on my contribution's PR, and open an issue on the official documentation repository. As I said before, I'm all open to suggestions on how it can be better worded to not cause any misunderstandings, but these have to be constructive suggestions that would actually improve it.
- svrb 6y agoCan you explain why you believe "remove the misleading sentence" is not constructive?