dnrops
/
rfcs
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Fix typos in RFCs 3251-3309

This commit is contained in:
Jacob Pratt 2022-10-08 01:47:57 -04:00
parent 76d90c9042
commit 00997d7ad2
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: B80E19E4662B5AA4
2 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
text/3289-source_replacement_ambiguity.md
View File

@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ error: crates-io is replaced: use `--registry replacement` or `--registry crates
### Change 3: credentials are only sent to the same registry
If the `crates-io` source is replaced with another remote registry, the credentials for
`crates-io` are never sent to the replacement registry. This makes `crates-io` consistant
`crates-io` are never sent to the replacement registry. This makes `crates-io` consistent
with alternative registries and ensures credentials are only sent to the registry they are
associated with.

2
text/3307-de-rfc-type-ascription.md
View File

@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Syntax isn't the only reason; while type ascription is probably a good idea, a f
# Guide-level obfuscation
[guide-level-obfuscation]: #guide-level-obfuscation
The `:` type ascription syntax would be removed from the nightly language. It is up to the compiler team whether they wish to remove it completely from the compiler (or perhaps just make it unparseable and use some magical unstable `ascript!()` macro in the meantime so that it is testable).
The `:` type ascription syntax would be removed from the nightly language. It is up to the compiler team whether they wish to remove it completely from the compiler (or perhaps just make it unparsable and use some magical unstable `ascript!()` macro in the meantime so that it is testable).
This does not prevent future type ascription RFCs from happening, however they must propose the feature from first principles, and justify their choice of syntax. They are, of course, free to copy the work or text of the previous RFC.