target_features: explain what exacty 'implied' means here

[RalfJung]

No description provided.

[rustbot]

r? @estebank

rustbot has assigned @estebank.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[RalfJung]

I have tried a different wording, hopefully it is better now.

[workingjubilee]

lgtm

[RalfJung]

@workingjubilee is that a "r=me"?

[workingjubilee]

Ja, ich billige :^)

[RalfJung]

Thanks :) @bors r=workingjubilee rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 2c7f3ba has been approved by workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 2c7f3ba with merge b69f62f...

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[workingjubilee]

seems spurious?

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 2c7f3ba with merge 71042b4...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: workingjubilee
Pushing 71042b4 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (71042b4): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 786.407s -> 787.302s (0.11%)
Artifact size: 335.32 MiB -> 335.27 MiB (-0.02%)

[kadenlnelson]

I wanted to make the connection to the standard contraposition principle explicit. Not sure how to do that in any other style. ;)

Thanks for entertaining our nit picks on comments.

What I mentioned earlier is a sentiment that comments should explain what code cannot. If the comment is code-like, then it should be code.

I'm being idealistic here, I'm not asking you to refactor code. What you've added in this PR achieves the desired intent. I'm curious if you agree that code-like comments are a sign that the code itself isn't clear enough to describe what it's doing to the reader.

[RalfJung]

I don't think my comment was code-like. It was a comment on the level of mathematical logic, which -- in this case -- is at a higher level of abstraction than the code. Maybe you consider that code-like in the sense of being a formal language, but I think a comment that explains low-level code in terms of a higher-level formal language can be quite valuable.

[workingjubilee]

I also do not think it was a "code-like comment", or certainly it seemed just as well to have a different phrasing.

My remark was only because the sequences of starts-and-stops, plus an aside, made puzzling out the meaning, while possible, slightly nonintuitive.

Kind of like that sentence, actually.

[kadenlnelson]

I don't think my comment was code-like. It was a comment on the level of mathematical logic, which -- in this case -- is at a higher level of abstraction than the code. Maybe you consider that code-like in the sense of being a formal language, but I think a comment that explains low-level code in terms of a higher-level formal language can be quite valuable.

Interesting, I see your perspective now that you put it that way 🙂