Skip to content

Conversation

apasel422
Copy link
Contributor

closes #23327

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

r? @nikomatsakis

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@apasel422
Copy link
Contributor Author

r? @alexcrichton

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

I'm not sure how strong we really want the wording to be here, saying that it will be undefined is kinda scary and sounds like we're willing to put the burden of safety on the user, not the implementation. I think the emphasis here is that a logic error can happen if keys are modified but the key idea is that a segfault should never happen.

(I also prefer to format docs to 80-char line limits where the surrounding style is that as well)

@apasel422
Copy link
Contributor Author

Comments addressed.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

@bors: r+ 90f06ae

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 16, 2015

⌛ Testing commit 90f06ae with merge 1760e87...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 16, 2015
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 16, 2015

@bors bors merged commit 90f06ae into rust-lang:master Mar 16, 2015
@bors bors mentioned this pull request Mar 16, 2015
@apasel422 apasel422 deleted the 23327 branch March 16, 2015 23:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Interior mutability can cause inconsistency in collections
5 participants