-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
[Coding Guideline]: Ensure reads of union fields produce valid values #300
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
[Coding Guideline]: Ensure reads of union fields produce valid values #300
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for scrc-coding-guidelines ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
added new guideline on unions
repaired bibliography
delete unused citations
fixing up bibliography
interim save
9dc2bcd to
ea2dcf2
Compare
cleaned up
|
@PLeVasseur @felix91gr I did a final cleanup and this rule LGTM. Please review & approve |
iglesias
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I left a couple of comments. Otherwise it was all clear. One is a question about a line I wasn't sure about and the other just a typo fix suggestion.
src/coding-guidelines/types-and-traits/gui_UnionFieldValidity.rst.inc
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| | *Rust Unsafe Code Guidelines*, n.d. | ||
| | https://rust-lang.github.io/unsafe-code-guidelines/glossary.html#validity-and-safety-invariant. | ||
|
|
||
| >>>>>>> c93b2cb (Update types-and-traits.rst):src/coding-guidelines/types-and-traits.rst |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can this line be removed? Or is it somehow used as metadata or so?
…rst.inc Co-authored-by: Fernando José <[email protected]>
Added new guideline on unions by @rcseacord.
This is the same content as #270 but moved to the feature branch.