rust-lang / rust-lang/reference
Guidelines for referring to rustc lints
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 1.6k
- Forks
- 607
- PR merge metrics
- PR metrics pending
Description
I think the authoring guide should have some guidelines on referring to rustc lints.
Generally we prefer to avoid referring to them, but in several cases it is a disservice to not mention them. It would be helpful to have guidance on how to balance those kinds of references.
Some examples of lints that are currently referred to:
unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fnffi_unwind_callsunused_variablesunused_must_useunfulfilled_lint_expectationsoverflowing_literals
There's other cases where it currently doesn't refer to the specific lint, for example the #[deprecated] attribute, which arguably would benefit for a link to it.
As part of the attribute rework, we have a bunch of notes about rustc linting about certain things (like unused attributes, or future-incompatible warnings), but they don't refer to the lint by name.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading the authoring guide and the existing references to rustc lints, including unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn, ffi_unwind_calls, unused_variables, unused_must_use, unfulfilled_lint_expectations, and overflowing_literals. Done means documenting consistent guidance for when and how to refer to lint names, including relevant #[deprecated] and attribute-rework cases.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 38/100