bufreader::Buffer: Remove leftover note about initialized field#156026
Merged
rust-bors[bot] merged 1 commit intorust-lang:mainfrom May 2, 2026
Merged
bufreader::Buffer: Remove leftover note about initialized field#156026rust-bors[bot] merged 1 commit intorust-lang:mainfrom
bufreader::Buffer: Remove leftover note about initialized field#156026rust-bors[bot] merged 1 commit intorust-lang:mainfrom
Conversation
rust-lang#150129 reworked this field to use `bool` instead of `usize`, which is awesome! But the field's comment has a leftover note in it which is no longer true, and that needs to be removed.
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Collaborator
|
r? @jhpratt rustbot has assigned @jhpratt. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
Member
|
Thanks for the clarification…I definitely didn't see how this was wrong at first glance. @bors r+ rollup |
Contributor
rust-bors
Bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 2, 2026
Rollup of 4 pull requests Successful merges: - #154571 (Fix alias path for rustdoc) - #155749 (`-Znext-solver` Ignore region constraints from the nested goals in leakcheck) - #156026 (`bufreader::Buffer`: Remove leftover note about `initialized` field) - #156063 (Map `WSAESHUTDOWN` to `io::ErrorKind::BrokenPipe`)
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 2, 2026
Rollup merge of #156026 - InsertCreativityHere:patch-1, r=jhpratt `bufreader::Buffer`: Remove leftover note about `initialized` field Just a boring little doc fix! : v) #150129 reworked the `initialized` field to be a `bool` instead of a `usize`. And then #155314 reworked this field's comment (among other things). But, there's still a leftover note in the comment, which no longer makes sense: ``Note that while this often the same as `filled`, it doesn't need to be.`` This is referencing that back when `initialized` was a `usize`, it was common for it to have the same value as `filled`. ---- Fun fact: there's a typo in the note too! It's missing an "is" before or after "often".
Contributor
Author
No problem! Thanks for the quick review! : v) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Just a boring little doc fix! : v)
#150129 reworked the
initializedfield to be aboolinstead of ausize.And then #155314 reworked this field's comment (among other things).
But, there's still a leftover note in the comment, which no longer makes sense:
Note that while this often the same as `filled`, it doesn't need to be.This is referencing that back when
initializedwas ausize, it was common for it to have the same value asfilled.Fun fact: there's a typo in the note too! It's missing an "is" before or after "often".