From c5232615b6669431b70720d25f68b5c1bc9662e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alfie John Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 23:17:36 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] doc: small grammar fix --- src/doc/complement-design-faq.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/doc/complement-design-faq.md b/src/doc/complement-design-faq.md index 9a2531f094c..e57953db3a2 100644 --- a/src/doc/complement-design-faq.md +++ b/src/doc/complement-design-faq.md @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ code should need to run is a stack. `match` being exhaustive has some useful properties. First, if every possibility is covered by the `match`, adding further variants to the `enum` in the future will prompt a compilation failure, rather than runtime panic. -Second, it makes cost explicit. In general, only safe way to have a +Second, it makes cost explicit. In general, the only safe way to have a non-exhaustive match would be to panic the task if nothing is matched, though it could fall through if the type of the `match` expression is `()`. This sort of hidden cost and special casing is against the language's philosophy. It's