Merge pull request #1254 from funkill/patch-1

Inline code in some new/changed chapters

src/SUMMARY.md

@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@
     - [Operator Overloading](trait/ops.md)
     - [Drop](trait/drop.md)
     - [Iterators](trait/iter.md)
-    - [impl Trait](trait/impl_trait.md)
+    - [`impl Trait`](trait/impl_trait.md)
     - [Clone](trait/clone.md)
 
 - [macro_rules!](macros.md)
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@
 - [Error handling](error.md)
     - [`panic`](error/panic.md)
     - [`Option` & `unwrap`](error/option_unwrap.md)
-        - [Unpacking options with ?](error/option_unwrap/question_mark.md)
+        - [Unpacking options with `?`](error/option_unwrap/question_mark.md)
         - [Combinators: `map`](error/option_unwrap/map.md)
         - [Combinators: `and_then`](error/option_unwrap/and_then.md)
     - [`Result`](error/result.md)

src/error/option_unwrap/question_mark.md

@@ -1,17 +1,20 @@
-# Unpacking options with ?
+# Unpacking options with `?`
 
-You can unpack Options by using `match` statements, but it's often easier to use the `?` operator. If `x` is an `Option`, then evaluating `x?` will return the underlying value if `x` is Some, otherwise it will terminate whatever function is being executed and return `None`. 
+You can unpack `Option`s by using `match` statements, but it's often easier to
+use the `?` operator. If `x` is an `Option`, then evaluating `x?` will return
+the underlying value if `x` is `Some`, otherwise it will terminate whatever
+function is being executed and return `None`.
 
 ```rust,editable
 fn next_birthday(current_age: Option<u8>) -> Option<String> {
-	// If `current_age` is None, this returns None.
-	// If `current_age` is Some, the inner u8 gets assigned to `next_age`
+	// If `current_age` is `None`, this returns `None`.
+	// If `current_age` is `Some`, the inner `u8` gets assigned to `next_age`
     let next_age: u8 = current_age?;
     Some(format!("Next year I will be {}", next_age))
 }
 ```
 
-You can chain many ?s together to make your code much more readable.
+You can chain many `?`s together to make your code much more readable.
 
 ```rust,editable
 struct Person {
@@ -30,10 +33,10 @@ struct PhoneNumber {
 }
 
 impl Person {
-    
+
     // Gets the area code of the phone number of the person's job, if it exists.
     fn work_phone_area_code(&self) -> Option<u8> {
-        // This would need many nested `match` statements without the ? operator.
+        // This would need many nested `match` statements without the `?` operator.
         // It would take a lot more code - try writing it yourself and see which
         // is easier.
         self.job?.phone_number?.area_code
@@ -52,4 +55,4 @@ fn main() {
 
     assert_eq!(p.work_phone_area_code(), Some(61));
 }
-```
+```

src/testing/unit_testing.md

@@ -70,8 +70,10 @@ failures:
 test result: FAILED. 1 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out
 ```
 
-## Tests and ?
-None of the previous unit test examples had a return type. But in Rust 2018, your unit tests can return Result<()>, which lets you use `?` in them! This can make them much more concise. 
+## Tests and `?`
+None of the previous unit test examples had a return type. But in Rust 2018,
+your unit tests can return `Result<()>`, which lets you use `?` in them! This
+can make them much more concise.
 
 ```rust,editable
 fn sqrt(number: f64) -> Result<f64, String> {
@@ -95,7 +97,7 @@ mod tests {
 }
 ```
 
-See [The Edition Guide][editionguide] for more details.
+See ["The Edition Guide"][editionguide] for more details.
 
 ## Testing panics
 

src/trait/impl_trait.md

@@ -1,12 +1,13 @@
-# impl Trait
+# `impl Trait`
 
-If your function returns a type that implements `MyTrait`, you can write its return type as `-> impl MyTrait`. This can help simplify your type signatures quite a lot!
+If your function returns a type that implements `MyTrait`, you can write its
+return type as `-> impl MyTrait`. This can help simplify your type signatures quite a lot!
 
 ```rust,editable
 use std::iter;
 use std::vec::IntoIter;
 
-// This function combines two Vec<i32> and returns an iterator over it.
+// This function combines two `Vec<i32>` and returns an iterator over it.
 // Look how complicated its return type is!
 fn combine_vecs_explicit_return_type<'a>(
     v: Vec<i32>,
@@ -25,7 +26,10 @@ fn combine_vecs<'a>(
 }
 ```
 
-More importantly, some Rust types can't be written out. For example, every closure has its own unnamed concrete type. Before `impl Trait` syntax, you had to allocate on the heap in order to return a closure. But now you can do it all statically, like this:
+More importantly, some Rust types can't be written out. For example, every
+closure has its own unnamed concrete type. Before `impl Trait` syntax, you had
+to allocate on the heap in order to return a closure. But now you can do it all
+statically, like this:
 
 ```rust,editable
 // Returns a function that adds `y` to its input
@@ -40,7 +44,10 @@ fn main() {
 }
 ```
 
-You can also use `impl Trait` to return an iterator that uses `map` or `filter` closures! This makes using `map` and `filter` easier. Because closure types don't have names, you can't write out an explicit return type if your function returns iterators with closures. But with `impl Trait` you can do this easily:
+You can also use `impl Trait` to return an iterator that uses `map` or `filter`
+closures! This makes using `map` and `filter` easier. Because closure types don't
+have names, you can't write out an explicit return type if your function returns
+iterators with closures. But with `impl Trait` you can do this easily:
 
 ```rust,editable
 fn double_positives<'a>(numbers: &'a Vec<i32>) -> impl Iterator<Item = i32> + 'a {
@@ -49,4 +56,4 @@ fn double_positives<'a>(numbers: &'a Vec<i32>) -> impl Iterator<Item = i32> + 'a
         .filter(|x| x > &&0)
         .map(|x| x * 2)
 }
-```
+```