bjoernager/rust
bjoernager/rust
1
Fork 0
Code Activity

Rollup merge of #35103 - brettcannon:patch-1, r=Manishearth

Browse source 
Try to clear up some awkward wording
This commit is contained in:
Guillaume Gomez 2016-07-29 11:57:54 +02:00 • committed by GitHub
commit 5f5fdf64f1
1 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

6
src/doc/book/closures.md
View file

@ -291,9 +291,9 @@ isn’t interesting. The next part is:
# some_closure(1) } # some_closure(1) }
``` ```
Because `Fn` is a trait, we can bound our generic with it. In this case, our Because `Fn` is a trait, we can use it as a bound for our generic type. In
closure takes a `i32` as an argument and returns an `i32`, and so the generic this case, our closure takes a `i32` as an argument and returns an `i32`, and
bound we use is `Fn(i32) -> i32`. so the generic bound we use is `Fn(i32) -> i32`.
There’s one other key point here: because we’re bounding a generic with a There’s one other key point here: because we’re bounding a generic with a
trait, this will get monomorphized, and therefore, we’ll be doing static trait, this will get monomorphized, and therefore, we’ll be doing static