From f5216ee5863f81d56a679166fa64d3b3ce907843 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aakarshit Uppal <26065812+aksh1618@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 17:37:30 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Fix typos in pin.rs --- library/core/src/pin.rs | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/library/core/src/pin.rs b/library/core/src/pin.rs index c14c49a0d92f9..43cebf4881eb5 100644 --- a/library/core/src/pin.rs +++ b/library/core/src/pin.rs @@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ //! exactly what we did with our `AddrTracker` example above. Without doing this, you *must not* //! rely on pinning-related guarantees to apply to your type! //! -//! If need to truly pin a value of a foreign or built-in type that implements [`Unpin`], you'll -//! need to create your own wrapper type around the [`Unpin`] type you want to pin and then -//! opts-out of [`Unpin`] using [`PhantomPinned`]. +//! If you really need to pin a value of a foreign or built-in type that implements [`Unpin`], +//! you'll need to create your own wrapper type around the [`Unpin`] type you want to pin and then +//! opt-out of [`Unpin`] using [`PhantomPinned`]. //! //! Exposing access to the inner field which you want to remain pinned must then be carefully //! considered as well! Remember, exposing a method that gives access to a