Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove remark about poor code style #37503

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 12, 2016
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
22 changes: 8 additions & 14 deletions src/doc/book/traits.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -243,28 +243,22 @@ to know more about [operator traits][operators-and-overloading].
# Rules for implementing traits

So far, we’ve only added trait implementations to structs, but you can
implement a trait for any type. So technically, we _could_ implement `HasArea`
for `i32`:
implement a trait for any type such as `f32`:

```rust
trait HasArea {
fn area(&self) -> f64;
trait ApproxEqual {
fn approx_equal(&self, other: &Self) -> bool;
}

impl HasArea for i32 {
fn area(&self) -> f64 {
println!("this is silly");

*self as f64
impl ApproxEqual for f32 {
fn approx_equal(&self, other: &Self) -> bool {
// Appropriate for `self` and `other` being close to 1.0.
(self - other).abs() <= ::std::f32::EPSILON
}
}

5.area();
println!("{}", 1.0.approx_equal(&1.00000001));
```

It is considered poor style to implement methods on such primitive types, even
though it is possible.

This may seem like the Wild West, but there are two restrictions around
implementing traits that prevent this from getting out of hand. The first is
that if the trait isn’t defined in your scope, it doesn’t apply. Here’s an
Expand Down