These sort of warnings can be distracting when commenting out a few
lines of code or demonstrating some other concept. They can be
re-enabled for a code block with `warnunused`.
I filed https://github.com/rust-lang/mdBook/issues/2527 to get behavior
like this upstream.
These are some minor updates from walking through the session myself.
* Add some context to the `entry.S` slide, which is otherwise a bit
terrifying for someone who does not speak ARM assembly.
* Include a simple, fake example of MMIO.
* Add a "Using It" section to the minimal UART segment, parallel to the
better UART
* Better explanation of the `unwrap` calls in the logging example.
Unwrap is never "unsafe", so remove that word.
* Allow dead code in some `.rs` files.
* Remove redundant warning about use of memory before MMU setup.
* Rephase text about buddy-system
* Fix lint warning in spin slide.
The custom function `cap` does the same as `Ord::clamp`, which was
introduced in Rust 1.50. Let's use the latter instead.
I've flashed the new program onto my microbit and can confirm it still
works as intended.
Bumps the patch group in /src/bare-metal/aps/examples with 1 update:
[cc](https://github.com/rust-lang/cc-rs).
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
The current example demonstrating how rustc prevents dangling references
is really gross and hard to read (my own fault lol, I wrote that
example). I finally realized that there's a much simpler, easier to read
way of expressing the same thing. I also moved this to its own slide
after the reference slides so that we can call it out as an early
example of the borrow checker. I then call back to this example in the
borrow checker slide to remind students that the aliasing rule isn't the
only thing the borrow checker is enforcing.
The side bar is out of date, and also the the unit testing docs are
talking about integration tests. These tests are discussed on the next
slide in "Other Types of Tests".
I think it would be good to simplify the expression evaluation exercise
by removing the error handling around the divide-by-zero case. I think
it overcomplicates the exercise and and adds confusion since at this
point we haven't introduced `Result` (or at least not in any detail).
This allows the students to just focus on writing the pattern matches on
`Expression` and `Op`, and allows the exercise to be shorter (and I
think we need to free up some time where we can, my classes often run
long and cut into how much time students have for exercises).
The current slide on visibility introduces the idea that modules are the
encapsulation boundary, but it doesn't explicitly doesn't talk about
struct fields/methods. I think it's worth talking explicitly about
structs and encapsulation because most students are going to be coming
from a background where types (instead of modules) are the encapsulation
boundary. It's worth talking explicitly about how encapsulation works,
even if we're kind of repeating information from the previous slide.
The `(&values).into_iter()` construct used in the solution to the
iterators exercise is kind of awkward and always gets questions from
students. I think the better thing would be to use the `iter` method to
get the initial iterator, as that's the more idiomatic way to. It's also
an opportunity to point out that there are helper methods for getting an
iterator for a collection.
The solution to the modules exercise changes how `Button`, `Window`, and
`Label` are referenced, adding a `widgets::` prefix to them. This seems
weird to me because the more idiomatic thing to do would be to import
those types at the top of the file. Unless I'm missing a reason why the
solutions is written the way it is, I think this is a good
simplification.
"Third-party" is a Googleism that doesn't make much sense otherwise.
Most references to crates just say "crate", implying that they are
open-source packages available on https://crates.io, so this updates a
few additional locations to do the same.
On my chromebook:
* I needed build-essentials to install cc
* I needed to enable sharing the USB device with linux. This instruction
was from a support.google.com article so well-known but not obvious.
---------
Co-authored-by: Martin Geisler <martin@geisler.net>
Without this, compilation fails. The comment *is* in the included Rust
file — but we only include a fraction of the file to keep the example
short. This makes it cumbersome to both show something that works in the
slides while also making it possible for the instructor to show more
complex examples.
@randomPoison, we need to make our examples simpler here: the complexity
here makes it hard to modify the files and I feel it's hard to show
during class. I would suggest splitting this up into a very basic
example (what the birthday service was) and then add 1-2 slides with
more complex samples (if necessary). Last I taught the class, I had a
hard time a) making every example compile and b) finding time to cover
everything.
I would err on the side of makings things simple and clear.
The page is not mentioned in the `SUMMARY.md` file and has apparently
been forgotten.
We could consider adding a check for this situation, but since I don't
think it occurs very often, I don't consider it high priority.
