reference: it is sometimes called "the compiler" in this document

[tshepang]

No description provided.

[rust-highfive]

r? @huonw

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[huonw]

I think the phrase is talking about the "the", not the "Rust".

[tshepang]

(closed by mistake)

[tshepang]

@huonw That's not clear, and the qualifier is not even needed anyways. It should be obvious that we are talking about the Rust compiler.

[leoyvens]

I don't think it's obvious. The only implementation is a compiler immediately makes the reader ask: "what compiler?"

[tshepang]

@leodasvacas the are 2 things presented: interpreter and compiler. There is then a claim that the only implementation that exists (at the moment) is a compiler... i.e. there is no interpreter.

Given this is the Rust reference, if one were to mention some other compiler, it would be qualified (e.g. the C++ compiler).

[leoyvens]

Saying "the C++ compiler" would be unclear, there is no "the C++ compiler" but there are clang and gcc. In the case of rust, we have a compiler which is called "the Rust compiler", rather than "the Rust-o-tron3000". It's good to have precise definitions in a language reference, even if they seem obvious.

[tshepang]

@leodasvacas Do you suggest that all instances of "the compiler" should be replaced with "the Rust compiler"?

[tshepang]

@leodasvacas The phrase "C++ compiler" is valid in cases where the implementation doesn't matter... there is stuff that is common among all implementations.

[steveklabnik]

After leaving this sit for a while, I think we'll just keep it as it is. Thanks though!

[tshepang]

@steveklabnik if this PR is not good enough to be merged, one that should is one that replaces all occurrences of the compiler with the Rust compiler. Else, we are leaving this inaccurate statement alive:

...from now on referred to as the Rust compiler...

[steveklabnik]

Sure thing. Would you like to do that, or should I?

[tshepang]

you may

[steveklabnik]

So, thinking about it more, I actually do prefer this change. It looks like you deleted the branch, though, so I can't re-open. Can you?

[tshepang]

I undeleted it. Thanks for re-considering it.

[steveklabnik]

@bors: r+ rollup

[steveklabnik]

No problem, and thanks for being patient. I originally thought this came much, much earlier in the reference.

[tshepang]

you'll need to re-open the issue as well

[steveklabnik]

Ugh, I thought I did. thanks

[steveklabnik]

@bors: r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 36582da has been approved by steveklabnik

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 36582da with merge 5f06607...

[tshepang]

yay!

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - auto-linux-32-nopt-t, auto-linux-32-opt, auto-linux-64-nopt-t, auto-linux-64-opt, auto-linux-64-x-android-t, auto-mac-32-opt, auto-mac-64-nopt-t, auto-mac-64-opt, auto-win-gnu-32-nopt-t, auto-win-gnu-32-opt, auto-win-gnu-64-nopt-t, auto-win-gnu-64-opt, auto-win-msvc-32-opt, auto-win-msvc-64-opt