Auditing the Reference Manual

Hello everyone! We have 22 days until 1.0! Let's round that off to a nice 20.

As you all know, the Manual has always been a bit... wrong. It's the hardest piece of documentation to keep up-to-date, and while the language was changing so quickly... yeah.

We have this issue on the 1.0 milestone about double checking the Reference:

We've decided that the standard for the reference at present is "Nothing should be incorrect, but it doesn't need to be complete." I've gone over the whole thing myself, and I think it has that standard today, but I'm just one person, and reading something that long, I'm bound to make some mistakes. So I'm asking for your help.

I've added a checklist to that issue. There are 150 (!) sections in the Reference. With 20 days to go, we need to audit seven and a half sections a day to get this done.

Many of these sections are small, so don't despair! If you're new to Rust, this is also a great way to get involved: pick a section, try out what it says, see if it's true.

If you decide to pitch in, please pick a section, and if it's good, mention so in the comments on that issue. If it's not, please send a PR, and also mention that you've sent it in the issue.

here's a quick link:

Don't forget, you can edit it on github and send a PR without even forking! Click the little pencil button on

Thanks so much! :heart:


I don’t think the following claim (in section 6.2 Visibility and Privacy) is strictly true: “By default, everything in Rust is private, with one exception. Enum variants in a pub enum are also public by default”.

The following are public by default also: trait methods, trait associated methods, trait associated types (and in future, trait associated constants).

Enum variants can’t be made private any more, can they? Trait members likewise cannot be private.

Yes, that’s not accurate any more. Do you want to send a PR, or should I do it?

If you could do it please. I barely know how to create a pull request nor have the confidence of the correct Rust terminology, correct English and such.

Suggestion: List all the missing elements.

That’ll help readers and also serve as a to-do list.

There’s a checklist in the ticket.

1 Like

That checklist seems to list the reference doc sections to review.

What I meant was a list of all the Rust language details yet to be documented, e.g. recently-approved RFCs.

… and the language parts of

This still needs a PR

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.