Merge 0fed861c42 into c0e8c56d76

src/hrtb.md

@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ fn main() {
 }
 ```
 
-If we try to naively desugar this code in the same way that we did in the
+If we try to naïvely desugar this code in the same way that we did in the
 lifetimes section, we run into some trouble:
 
 ```rust,ignore

src/ownership.md

@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ data.push(4);
 println!("{}", x);
 ```
 
-naive scope analysis would be insufficient to prevent this bug, because `data`
+naïve scope analysis would be insufficient to prevent this bug, because `data`
 does in fact live as long as we needed. However it was *changed* while we had
 a reference into it. This is why Rust requires any references to freeze the
 referent and its owners.

src/repr-rust.md

@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ requires different monomorphizations to have *different field orderings*.
 **Note: this is a hypothetical optimization that is not yet implemented in Rust
 1.0**
 
-Enums make this consideration even more complicated. Naively, an enum such as:
+Enums make this consideration even more complicated. Naïvely, an enum such as:
 
 ```rust
 enum Foo {

src/vec-layout.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ First off, we need to come up with the struct layout. A Vec has three parts:
 a pointer to the allocation, the size of the allocation, and the number of
 elements that have been initialized.
 
-Naively, this means we just want this design:
+Naïvely, this means we just want this design:
 
 ```rust
 pub struct Vec<T> {

src/vec.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ many intrinsics *do* become stabilized elsewhere (`std::ptr` and `str::mem`
 consist of many intrinsics).
 
 Ultimately this means our implementation may not take advantage of all
-possible optimizations, though it will be by no means *naive*. We will
+possible optimizations, though it will be by no means *naïve*. We will
 definitely get into the weeds over nitty-gritty details, even
 when the problem doesn't *really* merit it.