Mirrors/clap
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/clap-rs/clap synced 2024-12-14 06:42:33 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity
clap/src/_tutorial.rs

223 lines
8 KiB
Rust
Raw Normal View History

docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
// Contributing
//
// New example code:
// - Please update the corresponding section in the derive tutorial
// - Building: They must be added to `Cargo.toml` with the appropriate `required-features`.
// - Testing: Ensure there is a markdown file with [trycmd](https://docs.rs/trycmd) syntax
//
// See also the general CONTRIBUTING
//! # Documentation: Builder Tutorial
//!
//! 1. [Quick Start](#quick-start)
//! 2. [Configuring the Parser](#configuring-the-parser)
//! 3. [Adding Arguments](#adding-arguments)
//! 1. [Positionals](#positionals)
//! 2. [Options](#options)
//! 3. [Flags](#flags)
//! 4. [Subcommands](#subcommands)
//! 5. [Defaults](#defaults)
//! 4. Validation
//! 1. [Enumerated values](#enumerated-values)
//! 2. [Validated values](#validated-values)
//! 3. [Argument Relations](#argument-relations)
//! 4. [Custom Validation](#custom-validation)
//! 5. [Testing](#testing)
//!
//! See also
//! - [FAQ: When should I use the builder vs derive APIs?][crate::_faq#when-should-i-use-the-builder-vs-derive-apis]
//! - The [cookbook][crate::_cookbook] for more application-focused examples
//!
//! ## Quick Start
//!
//! You can create an application with several arguments using usage strings.
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/01_quick.rs")]
//! ```
//!
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/01_quick.md")]
//!
//! ## Configuring the Parser
//!
//! You use [`Command`][crate::Command] to start building a parser.
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/02_apps.rs")]
//! ```
//!
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/02_apps.md")]
//!
//! You can use [`command!()`][crate::command!] to fill these fields in from your `Cargo.toml`
//! file. **This requires the [`cargo` feature flag][crate::_features].**
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/02_crate.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/02_crate.md")]
//!
//! You can use [`Command`][crate::Command] methods to change the application level behavior of
//! clap.
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/02_app_settings.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/02_app_settings.md")]
//!
//! ## Adding Arguments
//!
//! ### Positionals
//!
//! You can have users specify values by their position on the command-line:
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_03_positional.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_03_positional.md")]
//!
docs: Fix a typo
2022-12-14 07:33:30 +00:00
//! Note that the default [`ArgAction`][crate::ArgAction] is [`Set`][crate::ArgAction::Set]. To
docs(tutorial): Further expand on actions
2022-08-08 19:32:21 +00:00
//! accept multiple values, use [`Append`][crate::ArgAction::Append]:
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_03_positional_mult.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_03_positional_mult.md")]
//!
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
//! ### Options
//!
//! You can name your arguments with a flag:
//! - Order doesn't matter
//! - They can be optional
//! - Intent is clearer
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_02_option.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_02_option.md")]
//!
docs: Fix a typo
2022-12-14 07:33:30 +00:00
//! Note that the default [`ArgAction`][crate::ArgAction] is [`Set`][crate::ArgAction::Set]. To
docs(tutorial): Further expand on actions
2022-08-08 19:32:21 +00:00
//! accept multiple occurrences, use [`Append`][crate::ArgAction::Append]:
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_02_option_mult.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_02_option_mult.md")]
//!
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
//! ### Flags
//!
//! Flags can also be switches that can be on/off:
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_01_flag_bool.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_01_flag_bool.md")]
//!
docs(tutorial): Fix flag actions Fixes #4359
2022-10-09 01:13:56 +00:00
//! To accept multiple flags, use [`Count`][crate::ArgAction::Count]:
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_01_flag_count.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_01_flag_count.md")]
//!
//! ### Subcommands
//!
//! Subcommands are defined as [`Command`][crate::Command]s that get added via
//! [`Command::subcommand`][crate::Command::subcommand]. Each instance of a Subcommand can have its
//! own version, author(s), Args, and even its own subcommands.
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_04_subcommands.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_04_subcommands.md")]
//!
//! ### Defaults
//!
//! We've previously showed that arguments can be [`required`][crate::Arg::required] or optional.
//! When optional, you work with a `Option` and can `unwrap_or`. Alternatively, you can set
//! [`Arg::default_value`][crate::Arg::default_value].
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_05_default_values.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/03_05_default_values.md")]
//!
//! ## Validation
//!
docs: Clarify value parser Things that tripped up a user - Derive reference was misunderstood to say that the only alternative to the built-in value parser behavior was to implement `ValueParserFactory` - We now delegate to `value_parser!`s docs any talk of integrating into it (it should have been a subbullet of "not present" anyways) - `value_parser!` relies too much on the example to demonstrate behavior when the user will likely make the determination of whether its relevant before then - We are now more upfront what type mappings are supported - Too many steps to find all information - For example, a user needs to look at `TypedValueParser` implementations, `ValueParserFactory` implementations, and `From<T> for ValueParser` implementations to understand what all can be used - We are now more upfront with a lot of this information at the entry points the user is most likely to look at In addition, I did an audit of the docs to make sure they were updated for us only supporting the new behavior and all of the new APIs. See https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/xjlie4/preannouncing_clap_40_a_rust_cli_argument_parser/ip9kzf1/
2022-09-21 16:06:33 +00:00
//! By default, arguments are assumed to be `String`s and only UTF-8 validation is performed.
//!
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
//! ### Enumerated values
//!
//! If you have arguments of specific values you want to test for, you can use the
//! [`PossibleValuesParser`][crate::builder::PossibleValuesParser] or [`Arg::value_parser(["val1",
//! ...])`][crate::Arg::value_parser] for short.
//!
//! This allows you specify the valid values for that argument. If the user does not use one of
//! those specific values, they will receive a graceful exit with error message informing them
//! of the mistake, and what the possible valid values are
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/04_01_possible.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/04_01_possible.md")]
//!
//! When enabling the [`derive` feature][crate::_features], you can use
//! [`ValueEnum`][crate::ValueEnum] to take care of the boiler plate for you, giving the same
//! results.
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/04_01_enum.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/04_01_enum.md")]
//!
//! ### Validated values
//!
//! More generally, you can validate and parse into any data type.
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/04_02_parse.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/04_02_parse.md")]
//!
//! A custom parser can be used to improve the error messages or provide additional validation:
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/04_02_validate.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/04_02_validate.md")]
//!
docs: Clarify value parser Things that tripped up a user - Derive reference was misunderstood to say that the only alternative to the built-in value parser behavior was to implement `ValueParserFactory` - We now delegate to `value_parser!`s docs any talk of integrating into it (it should have been a subbullet of "not present" anyways) - `value_parser!` relies too much on the example to demonstrate behavior when the user will likely make the determination of whether its relevant before then - We are now more upfront what type mappings are supported - Too many steps to find all information - For example, a user needs to look at `TypedValueParser` implementations, `ValueParserFactory` implementations, and `From<T> for ValueParser` implementations to understand what all can be used - We are now more upfront with a lot of this information at the entry points the user is most likely to look at In addition, I did an audit of the docs to make sure they were updated for us only supporting the new behavior and all of the new APIs. See https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/xjlie4/preannouncing_clap_40_a_rust_cli_argument_parser/ip9kzf1/
2022-09-21 16:06:33 +00:00
//! See [`Arg::value_parser`][crate::Arg::value_parser] for more details.
//!
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
//! ### Argument Relations
//!
//! You can declare dependencies or conflicts between [`Arg`][crate::Arg]s or even
//! [`ArgGroup`][crate::ArgGroup]s.
//!
//! [`ArgGroup`][crate::ArgGroup]s make it easier to declare relations instead of having to list
//! each individually, or when you want a rule to apply "any but not all" arguments.
//!
//! Perhaps the most common use of [`ArgGroup`][crate::ArgGroup]s is to require one and *only* one
//! argument to be present out of a given set. Imagine that you had multiple arguments, and you
//! want one of them to be required, but making all of them required isn't feasible because perhaps
//! they conflict with each other.
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/04_03_relations.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/04_03_relations.md")]
//!
//! ### Custom Validation
//!
//! As a last resort, you can create custom errors with the basics of clap's formatting.
//!
//! ```rust
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/04_04_custom.rs")]
//! ```
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/04_04_custom.md")]
//!
//! ## Testing
//!
//! clap reports most development errors as `debug_assert!`s. Rather than checking every
//! subcommand, you should have a test that calls
fix!: Remove App alias for Command
2022-07-21 20:08:37 +00:00
//! [`Command::debug_assert`][crate::Command::debug_assert]:
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
//! ```rust,no_run
#![doc = include_str!("../examples/tutorial_builder/05_01_assert.rs")]
//! ```
Reference in a new issue Copy permalink