OBRM for aturon

SUMMARY.md

@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
 	* [Checked](checked-uninit.md)
 	* [Drop Flags](drop-flags.md)
 	* [Unchecked](unchecked-uninit.md)
-* [Ownership-Oriented Resource Management](raii.md)
+* [Ownership Based Resource Management](obrm.md)
 	* [Constructors](constructors.md)
 	* [Destructors](destructors.md)
 	* [Leaking](leaking.md)

destructors.md

@@ -45,8 +45,8 @@ impl<T> Drop for Box<T> {
 ```
 
 and this works fine because when Rust goes to drop the `ptr` field it just sees
-a *mut that has no actual `Drop` implementation. Similarly nothing can use-
-after-free the `ptr` because the Box is immediately marked as uninitialized.
+a [Unique][] that has no actual `Drop` implementation. Similarly nothing can
+use-after-free the `ptr` because when drop exits, it becomes inacessible.
 
 However this wouldn't work:
 
@@ -174,3 +174,5 @@ arbitrarily invalid state in there.
 On balance this is an ok choice. Certainly what you should reach for by default.
 However, in the future we expect there to be a first-class way to announce that
 a field shouldn't be automatically dropped.
+
+[Unique]: phantom-data.html

leaking.md

@@ -8,14 +8,17 @@ is perfect and all of our problems are solved.
 
 Everything is terrible and we have new and exotic problems to try to solve.
 
-Many people like to believe that Rust eliminates resource leaks, but this is
-absolutely not the case, no matter how you look at it. In the strictest sense,
-"leaking" is so abstract as to be unpreventable. It's quite trivial to
-initialize a collection at the start of a program, fill it with tons of objects
-with destructors, and then enter an infinite event loop that never refers to it.
-The collection will sit around uselessly, holding on to its precious resources
-until the program terminates (at which point all those resources would have been
-reclaimed by the OS anyway).
+Many people like to believe that Rust eliminates resource leaks. In practice,
+this is basically true. You would be surprised to see a Safe Rust program
+leak resources in an uncontrolled way.
+
+However from a theoretical perspective this is absolutely not the case, no
+matter how you look at it. In the strictest sense, "leaking" is so abstract as
+to be unpreventable. It's quite trivial to initialize a collection at the start
+of a program, fill it with tons of objects with destructors, and then enter an
+infinite event loop that never refers to it. The collection will sit around
+uselessly, holding on to its precious resources until the program terminates (at
+which point all those resources would have been reclaimed by the OS anyway).
 
 We may consider a more restricted form of leak: failing to drop a value that is
 unreachable. Rust also doesn't prevent this. In fact Rust has a *function for
@@ -181,7 +184,26 @@ in memory.
 ## thread::scoped::JoinGuard
 
 The thread::scoped API intends to allow threads to be spawned that reference
-data on the stack without any synchronization over that data. Usage looked like:
+data on their parent's stack without any synchronization over that data by
+ensuring the parent joins the thread before any of the shared data goes out
+of scope.
+
+```rust
+pub fn scoped<'a, F>(f: F) -> JoinGuard<'a>
+    where F: FnOnce() + Send + 'a
+```
+
+Here `f` is some closure for the other thread to execute. Saying that
+`F: Send +'a` is saying that it closes over data that lives for `'a`, and it
+either owns that data or the data was Sync (implying `&data` is Send).
+
+Because JoinGuard has a lifetime, it keeps all the data it closes over
+borrowed in the parent thread. This means the JoinGuard can't outlive
+the data that the other thread is working on. When the JoinGuard *does* get
+dropped it blocks the parent thread, ensuring the child terminates before any
+of the closed-over data goes out of scope in the parent.
+
+Usage looked like:
 
 ```rust,ignore
 let mut data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];

obrm.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+% The Perils Of Ownership Based Resource Management (OBRM)
+
+OBRM (AKA RAII: Resource Acquisition Is Initialization) is something you'll
+interact with a lot in Rust. Especially if you use the standard library.
+
+Roughly speaking the pattern is as follows: to acquire a resource, you create an
+object that manages it. To release the resource, you simply destroy the object,
+and it cleans up the resource for you. The most common "resource" this pattern
+manages is simply *memory*. `Box`, `Rc`, and basically everything in
+`std::collections` is a convenience to enable correctly managing memory. This is
+particularly important in Rust because we have no pervasive GC to rely on for
+memory management. Which is the point, really: Rust is about control. However we
+are not limited to just memory. Pretty much every other system resource like a
+thread, file, or socket is exposed through this kind of API.

raii.md

@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
-% The Perils Of RAII
-
-Ownership Based Resource Management (AKA RAII: Resource Acquisition Is Initialization) is
-something you'll interact with a lot in Rust. Especially if you use the standard library.
-
-Roughly speaking the pattern is as follows: to acquire a resource, you create an object that
-manages it. To release the resource, you simply destroy the object, and it cleans up the
-resource for you. The most common "resource"
-this pattern manages is simply *memory*. `Box`, `Rc`, and basically everything in
-`std::collections` is a convenience to enable correctly managing memory. This is particularly
-important in Rust because we have no pervasive GC to rely on for memory management. Which is the
-point, really: Rust is about control. However we are not limited to just memory.
-Pretty much every other system resource like a thread, file, or socket is exposed through
-this kind of API.