Fix some grammar in The Advanced Rust Programming Language

pull/10/head
Ivan Jager 9 years ago committed by Manish Goregaokar
parent f6e739a54c
commit 399efd4cdc

@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ fundamentally unsynchronized and compilers are free to aggressively optimize
them. In particular, data accesses are free to be reordered by the compiler on
the assumption that the program is single-threaded. The hardware is also free to
propagate the changes made in data accesses to other threads as lazily and
inconsistently as it wants. Mostly critically, data accesses are how data races
inconsistently as it wants. Most critically, data accesses are how data races
happen. Data accesses are very friendly to the hardware and compiler, but as
we've seen they offer *awful* semantics to try to write synchronized code with.
Actually, that's too weak.

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ an abstraction over them in a relatively uncontroversial way. Message passing,
green threads, and async APIs are all diverse enough that any abstraction over
them tends to involve trade-offs that we weren't willing to commit to for 1.0.
However the way Rust models concurrency makes it relatively easy design your own
However the way Rust models concurrency makes it relatively easy to design your own
concurrency paradigm as a library and have everyone else's code Just Work
with yours. Just require the right lifetimes and Send and Sync where appropriate
and you're off to the races. Or rather, off to the... not... having... races.

@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ enum Link {
will have its inner Box field dropped if and only if an instance stores the
Next variant.
In general this works really nice because you don't need to worry about
In general this works really nicely because you don't need to worry about
adding/removing drops when you refactor your data layout. Still there's
certainly many valid usecases for needing to do trickier things with
destructors.

@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
% Drop Flags
The examples in the previous section introduce an interesting problem for Rust.
We have seen that's possible to conditionally initialize, deinitialize, and
We have seen that it's possible to conditionally initialize, deinitialize, and
reinitialize locations of memory totally safely. For Copy types, this isn't
particularly notable since they're just a random pile of bits. However types
with destructors are a different story: Rust needs to know whether to call a

@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
% Drop Check
We have seen how lifetimes provide us some fairly simple rules for ensuring
that never read dangling references. However up to this point we have only ever
that we never read dangling references. However up to this point we have only ever
interacted with the *outlives* relationship in an inclusive manner. That is,
when we talked about `'a: 'b`, it was ok for `'a` to live *exactly* as long as
`'b`. At first glance, this seems to be a meaningless distinction. Nothing ever

@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
Not everything obeys inherited mutability, though. Some types allow you to
multiply alias a location in memory while mutating it. Unless these types use
synchronization to manage this access, they are absolutely not thread safe. Rust
captures this with through the `Send` and `Sync` traits.
captures this through the `Send` and `Sync` traits.
* A type is Send if it is safe to send it to another thread.
* A type is Sync if it is safe to share between threads (`&T` is Send).
@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ captures this with through the `Send` and `Sync` traits.
Send and Sync are fundamental to Rust's concurrency story. As such, a
substantial amount of special tooling exists to make them work right. First and
foremost, they're [unsafe traits][]. This means that they are unsafe to
implement, and other unsafe code can that they are correctly
implement, and other unsafe code can assume that they are correctly
implemented. Since they're *marker traits* (they have no associated items like
methods), correctly implemented simply means that they have the intrinsic
properties an implementor should have. Incorrectly implementing Send or Sync can

@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ contain any `Drop` types.
However when working with uninitialized memory you need to be ever-vigilant for
Rust trying to drop values you make like this before they're fully initialized.
Every control path through that variable's scope must initialize the value
before it ends, if has a destructor.
before it ends, if it has a destructor.
*[This includes code panicking](unwinding.html)*.
And that's about it for working with uninitialized memory! Basically nothing

Loading…
Cancel
Save