docs: simplify wording

[matklad]

It took me more then a moment to decipher "with no non-'static" thing :)

"'static type" should say the same thing more clearly.

r? @steveklabnik

[steveklabnik]

Hmmm. We don't usually use these words these ways, though I do agree that the original sentence is awkward. What about something like

Most types implement Any. However, any type which contains a non-'static reference does not.

?

[matklad]

Do you mean that something's wrong with the English, or that something's wrong with the Rust terminology (static type)? In the latter case we might want to change the module level docs as well because they mention "static type". I've updated the PR anyway.

Wow, I think I see it now. "dynamic typing of static types" surely can cause confusion if you are not familiar with lifetimes. Should I change the module level docs to something like

This module implements the Any trait, which enables dynamic typing of any type with 'static lifetime through runtime reflection.

[steveklabnik]

Do you mean that something's wrong with the English, or that something's wrong with the Rust terminology (static type)?

The latter, we don't call things "static types". It's entirely possible that the module docs are bad; I haven't looked at them at all, so they've been whatever someone has felt like writing from a long time back, possibly before we even had unified terminology.

Should I change the module level docs to something like

This is where terms get hard :) Strictly speaking, a type doesn't have a lifetime, a type might be parameterized over a lifetime, though... My first reaction is something similar: "of many types through runtime reflection." and then mention the exception after the summary line.

[steveklabnik]

(that said, I'm also happy to merge this without updating the module docs, whichever you want!)

[matklad]

Ok, lets merge this as is. Looks like it's better to revise the whole docs for any module, and I don't feel like it at the moment :)

Strictly speaking, a type doesn't have a lifetime, a type might be parameterized over a lifetime, though...

How would you say T: 'static in English then? "T outlives static" sounds awkward to me.

[steveklabnik]

@bors: r+ rollup

I agree 😄

How would you say T: 'static in English then? "T outlives static" sounds awkward to me.

Usually "bound by the 'static lifetime" or "contains no non-'static references," which is uh, the wording that was confusing here 😄 .

[bors]

📌 Commit 7abdbd4 has been approved by steveklabnik