rust-lang / rust-lang/reference
Guidelines for documenting intended vs actual behavior
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 guidance on whether to document the actual behavior of rustc vs the intended behavior, and how to handle known bugs.
If there is a known issue, should it be encouraged or discouraged to link to the GitHub issue?
Should it have specific callouts for future-incompatible warnings? How should these known problems be documented? Should it document how it is intended to work? What if the intention is not yet known?
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 locating the authoring guide in the Rust Reference and review how it currently addresses intended versus actual behavior. Resolve the questions about known bugs, issue links, future-incompatible warnings, and unknown intent, then document the agreed guidance in the guide.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100