//@ methods on an `enum` (and also on `struct`, which we will learn about later)
//@ is independent of the definition of the type. `self` is like `this` in other
//@ languages, and its type is always implicit. So `print` is now a method that
-//@ takes as first argument a `NumberOrNothing`, just like `print_number_or_nothing`.
+//@ takes `NumberOrNothing` as the first argument, just like `print_number_or_nothing`.
//@
//@ Try making `number_or_default` from above an inherent method as well!
//@ their official name.
//@ As an example, consider a function which increments every element of a vector by 1.
-//@ The type `&mut Vec<i32>` is the type of mutable references to `vec<i32>`. Because the reference
+//@ The type `&mut Vec<i32>` is the type of mutable references to `Vec<i32>`. Because the reference
//@ is mutable, we can use a mutable iterator, providing mutable references to the elements.
fn vec_inc(v: &mut Vec<i32>) {
for e in v.iter_mut() {
//@ have aliasing (of `first` and `v`) and mutation. But this time, the bug is hidden behind the
//@ call to `head`. How does Rust solve this? If we translate the code above to Rust, it doesn't
//@ compile, so clearly we are good - but how and why?
-//@ (Notice that have to explicitly assert using //@ `unwrap` that `first` is not `None`, whereas
-//@ the C++ code above would silently dereference a //@ `NULL`-pointer. But that's another point.)
+//@ (Notice that we use `unwrap` to explicitly assert that `first` is not `None`, whereas
+//@ the C++ code above would silently dereference a `NULL`-pointer. But that's another point.)
fn rust_foo(mut v: Vec<i32>) -> i32 {
let first: Option<&i32> = head(&v);
/* v.push(42); */