the ground-up paper got published

[web.git] / personal / _posts / 2018-01-31-sharing-for-a-lifetime.md

diff --git a/personal/_posts/2018-01-31-sharing-for-a-lifetime.md b/personal/_posts/2018-01-31-sharing-for-a-lifetime.md
index 3a8af093f353182f273d4d1360410b300fe6c729..b07a334fbab553de8be01d95ea5099d0a15c6911 100644 (file)
--- a/personal/_posts/2018-01-31-sharing-for-a-lifetime.md
+++ b/personal/_posts/2018-01-31-sharing-for-a-lifetime.md
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ Overall, we conclude that we did not violate any of the invariants imposed on `x
 ## Interior Mutability
 
 Interior mutability however breaks this model of `&'a T`:  We just cannot declare that the pointed-to memory is read-only in general.
 ## Interior Mutability
 
 Interior mutability however breaks this model of `&'a T`:  We just cannot declare that the pointed-to memory is read-only in general.

-If we did, [`Cell::set`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/std/cell/struct.Cell.html#method.set) and many more operations would be blatantly unsafe.
+If we did, [`Cell::set`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/cell/struct.Cell.html#method.set) and many more operations would be blatantly unsafe.

 Indeed this is the reason shared references are not called "immutable references" even though they are generally considered the dual of mutable references.
 (My personal thinking is that mutable references should really be called "unique references" to instill the point that the distinction between the two is about uniqueness, not about mutability.  Oh well.)
 
 Indeed this is the reason shared references are not called "immutable references" even though they are generally considered the dual of mutable references.
 (My personal thinking is that mutable references should really be called "unique references" to instill the point that the distinction between the two is about uniqueness, not about mutability.  Oh well.)