Guide iterators

[steveklabnik]

This isn't ready to merge yet.

The 'containers and iterators' guide is basically just a collection of stuff that should be in the module definitions. So I'm moving the guide to just an 'iterators' guide, and moved the info that was there into the right places.

So, is this a good path forward, and is all of the information still correct?

[EduardoBautista]

Isn't it guide-iterators.md and not guide-iterator.md?

[huonw]

Another possibility to having a whole guide-iterators is having the docs of std::iter be the "iterator guide" (#9314), and similarly the doc string of std::collections could be beefed up to fill the 'introduction to containers in Rust' niche (if we need such a thing).

[steveklabnik]

@huonw I like that approach, I think

@EduardoBautista nice catch.

[steveklabnik]

@huonw updated to just do that instead.

I will beef up those docstrings when I do the module-level docs.

[huonw]

This line must be really close to 100, if it's not over.

[steveklabnik]

I let vim handle such things, maybe I should double check.

[huonw]

Maybe this should be deprecated rather than outright removed, to avoid killing every link completely?

[steveklabnik]

At what period do deprecated guides get removed? And they're in the wayback machine anyway. Historically, we've just deleted guides.

[huonw]

Historically, we've just deleted guides

Which guides have been deleted recently? I don't actually remember any.

In any case, it doesn't take much effort to leave it hanging around with a message for a while, at least until the modules themselves have some more info; especially since nothing is particularly wrong in it (there's a few wrong module paths, but that's all, as far as I could see with a quick scan)?

And they're in the wayback machine anyway.

Maybe our 404 page could have a link to the appropriate wayback search? (I don't think many people will take the page and look in the wayback machine unprompted, they'll just click the link to this page on the SO post, on reddit or some blog post and then get a discouraging impression with the 404 page staring back. We don't have to go out of the way to avoid this, since we're pre-1.0, but we can still try to be helpful.)

Of course, if you have a reason for just removing the old pages outright (e.g. cleaning up the organisation or something), that's fine.

[steveklabnik]

I'm thinking specifically of the Conditions Guide. I thought there were more, but I can't remember off the top of my head.

It's true that it doesn't take a lot of effort, it's just then you have to have a policy of how long, you have to remember to do it after that time, etc.

I guess I just lean on the side of 'urls go away, thats the way it is.' It's not a super big deal either way, really, I guess. Feels weird to have a bunch of empty markdown files just lying around in the repo.

[steveklabnik]

(this will also impact the 'runtime guide,' which will probably end up just getting nuked if the IO reform RFC is accepted)

[steveklabnik]

Added deprecations and rebased off of master.

[steveklabnik]

This looks like not my failure...

[alexcrichton]

It looks like a merge gone wrong maybe? Was src/libstd/collections/hashmap.rs accidentally reinstated?

[steveklabnik]

Ugh probably rebase gone wrong. I'll look into this soon.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 13, 2014, at 10:37, Alex Crichton notifications@github.com wrote:

It looks like a merge gone wrong maybe? Was src/libstd/collections/hashmap.rs accidentally reinstated?

�
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[steveklabnik]

@alexcrichton fixed

[alexcrichton]

Feel free to r=reviewer if you update for just small bugfixes!