-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.6k
sync: improve the docs for recv_many
#7201
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
Open
SwishSwushPow
wants to merge
1
commit into
tokio-rs:master
Choose a base branch
from
SwishSwushPow:improve-docs-for-recv-many
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I'm skimming this, I'm going to see "return when the number of received messages reaches
limit
" and I will get the wrong impression. I agree the current docs are bad, but I don't think this wording is good either.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could you please give me a hint in which way the current wording isn't up to par? Otherwise I'm not sure in which direction to go with this. 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about something like this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yup that looks also good. 👍 Just two things:
Does this
contradict this?
Maybe it makes sense to word that first sentence differently and say
And my second point: I would like to be a bit more precise here.
If we explain here in which case no further messages are loaded into the buffer, we can also change this
to remove the "often" part as we've explained in which situation the function is returning before the
limit
of messages is reached. I think that would be an important addition to the docs.My suggestion for that part would be:
Now that I formulated my suggestions I am still wondering how my original proposal was not up to par. 😅 I feel like I've tried more to explain what happens in which situation compared to your proposal. In turn you've added the more obvious disclaimer that this function should not be expected to receive a
limit
amount of messages. At the end of the day I'm happy with any improvement of the docs here, but I'm still curious. 😉Also, if we go with your proposal, please let me know if I should incorporate your suggestions (and give credit in the commit message I guess?) or if you will take over the contribution. :)