Explain why zero-length slices require a non-null pointer #41602
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @steveklabnik (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 Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed.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. |
shepmaster
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Thanks for the contribution! We will make sure that @steveklabnik or another member of the team takes a look at this in a reasonable amount of time. |
|
@rust-lang/libs, are you comfortable with this explanation? /cc @nagisa especially, we had a very recent conversation recently |
|
The explanation sounds reasonable and fine to me. Discussing about |
|
👍 |
|
@bors: r+ rollup Great, thanks a ton! |
|
📌 Commit e36f59e has been approved by |
|
⌛ Testing commit e36f59e with merge c0f86f5... |
Explain why zero-length slices require a non-null pointer In reference to [a thread on Discourse](https://users.rust-lang.org/t/why-does-std-slice-from-raw-parts-require-a-non-null-pointer-for-zero-length-slices/10534), explain why `from_raw_parts` requires a non-null pointer for zero-length slices. r? @steveklabnik
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
In reference to a thread on Discourse, explain why
from_raw_partsrequires a non-null pointer for zero-length slices.r? @steveklabnik