Merged
Conversation
The comment "the value passed on to the next iteration" confused me since it sounded more like what Haskell's [scanl](http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.11.0.0/docs/Prelude.html#v:scanl) does where the closure's return value serves as both the "yielded value" *and* the new value of the "state". I tried changing the example to make it clear that the closure's return value is decoupled from the state argument.
Contributor
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @Mark-Simulacrum (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
Member
|
@bors r+ rollup |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit f198b0a has been approved by |
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 26, 2018
Fix confusing doc for `scan` The comment "the value passed on to the next iteration" confused me since it sounded more like what Haskell's [scanl](http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.11.0.0/docs/Prelude.html#v:scanl) does where the closure's return value serves as both the "yielded value" *and* the new value of the "state". I tried changing the example to make it clear that the closure's return value is decoupled from the state argument.
TimNN
added a commit
to TimNN/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 26, 2018
Fix confusing doc for `scan` The comment "the value passed on to the next iteration" confused me since it sounded more like what Haskell's [scanl](http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.11.0.0/docs/Prelude.html#v:scanl) does where the closure's return value serves as both the "yielded value" *and* the new value of the "state". I tried changing the example to make it clear that the closure's return value is decoupled from the state argument.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 26, 2018
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
4 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.
The comment "the value passed on to the next iteration" confused me since it sounded more like what Haskell's scanl does where the closure's return value serves as both the "yielded value" and the new value of the "state".
I tried changing the example to make it clear that the closure's return value is decoupled from the state argument.