Update ops range example to avoid confusion between indexes and values.
Makes clearer the numbers in the range refer to indexes, not the values at those indexes.
During the RFC, it was discussed that figuring out whether a range is empty was subtle, and thus there should be a clear and obvious way to do it. It can't just be ExactSizeIterator::is_empty (also unstable) because not all ranges are ExactSize -- not even Range<i32> or RangeInclusive<usize>.
Add ..= to the parser
Add ..= to libproc_macro
Add ..= to ICH
Highlight ..= in rustdoc
Update impl Debug for RangeInclusive to ..=
Replace `...` to `..=` in range docs
Make the dotdoteq warning point to the ...
Add warning for ... in expressions
Updated more tests to the ..= syntax
Updated even more tests to the ..= syntax
Updated the inclusive_range entry in unstable book
* fixed link typos and copy-paster errors
* rewrote Fn* explanations
* `RHS = Self` -> `RHS` is `Self` (added that to all applicable places as
well)
* fixed up some links
* s/MutDeref/DerefMut
* removed remaining superfluous `fn main()`s
* fixed some minor phrasings and factual errors and inaccuracies
std::ops docs: Fix phrasing and factual errors/inaccuracies
Part of #29365.
* Strenghtened summary/explanation split, making phrasings more parallel
* Added links throughout
* Fixed some example formatting & removed extraneous `fn main()`s (or hid
then when needed because of `#![features]`.
* Emphasized note on `RangeFrom`'s `Iterator` implementation
* Added summary sentences to (unstable) `contains` methods
Replaced by adding extra imports, adding hidden code (`# ...`), modifying
examples to be runnable (sorry Homura), specifying non-Rust code, and
converting to should_panic, no_run, or compile_fail.
Remaining "```ignore"s received an explanation why they are being ignored.
