Fix a spelling error in HashMap documentation, and slightly reword surrounding text for precision #40621
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
… to be more precise.
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @BurntSushi (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
|
@jswalden This rewording seems fine to me as I suspect your interpretation is right, but I'd like other eyes on this just in case. cc @rust-lang/libs |
|
Yep, this wording is better than what I originally had written there, thanks! |
|
👍 |
|
@bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 2976ddb has been approved by |
frewsxcv
added a commit
to frewsxcv/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2017
…sfackler Fix a spelling error in HashMap documentation, and slightly reword surrounding text for precision Noticed while reading docs just now. It's possible that the prior wording *meant* to state that the seed's randomness depends on the exact instant that the system RNG was created, I guess. But unless there's an API guarantee that this is the case, the wording seems over-precise. Is there a formal API guarantee that would forbid, say, the system RNG from generating all output using the Intel RDRAND instruction? I don't think the quality of output in that case would depend on when the RNG was created. Yet it seems to me like it could well be a valid source of randomness when computing the initial seed. For that reason, tying the randomness of the seed, to the quality of the RNG's output *at the precise instant the seed is computed*, seems less confining. That instantaneous quality level could be determined by the quality at the instant the RNG was created -- but instantaneous quality need not be low for that precise reason.
frewsxcv
added a commit
to frewsxcv/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2017
…sfackler Fix a spelling error in HashMap documentation, and slightly reword surrounding text for precision Noticed while reading docs just now. It's possible that the prior wording *meant* to state that the seed's randomness depends on the exact instant that the system RNG was created, I guess. But unless there's an API guarantee that this is the case, the wording seems over-precise. Is there a formal API guarantee that would forbid, say, the system RNG from generating all output using the Intel RDRAND instruction? I don't think the quality of output in that case would depend on when the RNG was created. Yet it seems to me like it could well be a valid source of randomness when computing the initial seed. For that reason, tying the randomness of the seed, to the quality of the RNG's output *at the precise instant the seed is computed*, seems less confining. That instantaneous quality level could be determined by the quality at the instant the RNG was created -- but instantaneous quality need not be low for that precise reason.
frewsxcv
added a commit
to frewsxcv/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2017
…sfackler Fix a spelling error in HashMap documentation, and slightly reword surrounding text for precision Noticed while reading docs just now. It's possible that the prior wording *meant* to state that the seed's randomness depends on the exact instant that the system RNG was created, I guess. But unless there's an API guarantee that this is the case, the wording seems over-precise. Is there a formal API guarantee that would forbid, say, the system RNG from generating all output using the Intel RDRAND instruction? I don't think the quality of output in that case would depend on when the RNG was created. Yet it seems to me like it could well be a valid source of randomness when computing the initial seed. For that reason, tying the randomness of the seed, to the quality of the RNG's output *at the precise instant the seed is computed*, seems less confining. That instantaneous quality level could be determined by the quality at the instant the RNG was created -- but instantaneous quality need not be low for that precise reason.
frewsxcv
added a commit
to frewsxcv/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2017
…sfackler Fix a spelling error in HashMap documentation, and slightly reword surrounding text for precision Noticed while reading docs just now. It's possible that the prior wording *meant* to state that the seed's randomness depends on the exact instant that the system RNG was created, I guess. But unless there's an API guarantee that this is the case, the wording seems over-precise. Is there a formal API guarantee that would forbid, say, the system RNG from generating all output using the Intel RDRAND instruction? I don't think the quality of output in that case would depend on when the RNG was created. Yet it seems to me like it could well be a valid source of randomness when computing the initial seed. For that reason, tying the randomness of the seed, to the quality of the RNG's output *at the precise instant the seed is computed*, seems less confining. That instantaneous quality level could be determined by the quality at the instant the RNG was created -- but instantaneous quality need not be low for that precise reason.
frewsxcv
added a commit
to frewsxcv/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2017
…sfackler Fix a spelling error in HashMap documentation, and slightly reword surrounding text for precision Noticed while reading docs just now. It's possible that the prior wording *meant* to state that the seed's randomness depends on the exact instant that the system RNG was created, I guess. But unless there's an API guarantee that this is the case, the wording seems over-precise. Is there a formal API guarantee that would forbid, say, the system RNG from generating all output using the Intel RDRAND instruction? I don't think the quality of output in that case would depend on when the RNG was created. Yet it seems to me like it could well be a valid source of randomness when computing the initial seed. For that reason, tying the randomness of the seed, to the quality of the RNG's output *at the precise instant the seed is computed*, seems less confining. That instantaneous quality level could be determined by the quality at the instant the RNG was created -- but instantaneous quality need not be low for that precise reason.
arielb1
pushed a commit
to arielb1/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2017
…sfackler Fix a spelling error in HashMap documentation, and slightly reword surrounding text for precision Noticed while reading docs just now. It's possible that the prior wording *meant* to state that the seed's randomness depends on the exact instant that the system RNG was created, I guess. But unless there's an API guarantee that this is the case, the wording seems over-precise. Is there a formal API guarantee that would forbid, say, the system RNG from generating all output using the Intel RDRAND instruction? I don't think the quality of output in that case would depend on when the RNG was created. Yet it seems to me like it could well be a valid source of randomness when computing the initial seed. For that reason, tying the randomness of the seed, to the quality of the RNG's output *at the precise instant the seed is computed*, seems less confining. That instantaneous quality level could be determined by the quality at the instant the RNG was created -- but instantaneous quality need not be low for that precise reason.
arielb1
pushed a commit
to arielb1/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 19, 2017
…sfackler Fix a spelling error in HashMap documentation, and slightly reword surrounding text for precision Noticed while reading docs just now. It's possible that the prior wording *meant* to state that the seed's randomness depends on the exact instant that the system RNG was created, I guess. But unless there's an API guarantee that this is the case, the wording seems over-precise. Is there a formal API guarantee that would forbid, say, the system RNG from generating all output using the Intel RDRAND instruction? I don't think the quality of output in that case would depend on when the RNG was created. Yet it seems to me like it could well be a valid source of randomness when computing the initial seed. For that reason, tying the randomness of the seed, to the quality of the RNG's output *at the precise instant the seed is computed*, seems less confining. That instantaneous quality level could be determined by the quality at the instant the RNG was created -- but instantaneous quality need not be low for that precise reason.
frewsxcv
added a commit
to frewsxcv/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 19, 2017
…sfackler Fix a spelling error in HashMap documentation, and slightly reword surrounding text for precision Noticed while reading docs just now. It's possible that the prior wording *meant* to state that the seed's randomness depends on the exact instant that the system RNG was created, I guess. But unless there's an API guarantee that this is the case, the wording seems over-precise. Is there a formal API guarantee that would forbid, say, the system RNG from generating all output using the Intel RDRAND instruction? I don't think the quality of output in that case would depend on when the RNG was created. Yet it seems to me like it could well be a valid source of randomness when computing the initial seed. For that reason, tying the randomness of the seed, to the quality of the RNG's output *at the precise instant the seed is computed*, seems less confining. That instantaneous quality level could be determined by the quality at the instant the RNG was created -- but instantaneous quality need not be low for that precise reason.
frewsxcv
added a commit
to frewsxcv/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 19, 2017
…sfackler Fix a spelling error in HashMap documentation, and slightly reword surrounding text for precision Noticed while reading docs just now. It's possible that the prior wording *meant* to state that the seed's randomness depends on the exact instant that the system RNG was created, I guess. But unless there's an API guarantee that this is the case, the wording seems over-precise. Is there a formal API guarantee that would forbid, say, the system RNG from generating all output using the Intel RDRAND instruction? I don't think the quality of output in that case would depend on when the RNG was created. Yet it seems to me like it could well be a valid source of randomness when computing the initial seed. For that reason, tying the randomness of the seed, to the quality of the RNG's output *at the precise instant the seed is computed*, seems less confining. That instantaneous quality level could be determined by the quality at the instant the RNG was created -- but instantaneous quality need not be low for that precise reason.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Noticed while reading docs just now.
It's possible that the prior wording meant to state that the seed's randomness depends on the exact instant that the system RNG was created, I guess. But unless there's an API guarantee that this is the case, the wording seems over-precise. Is there a formal API guarantee that would forbid, say, the system RNG from generating all output using the Intel RDRAND instruction? I don't think the quality of output in that case would depend on when the RNG was created. Yet it seems to me like it could well be a valid source of randomness when computing the initial seed.
For that reason, tying the randomness of the seed, to the quality of the RNG's output at the precise instant the seed is computed, seems less confining. That instantaneous quality level could be determined by the quality at the instant the RNG was created -- but instantaneous quality need not be low for that precise reason.