clarify &&T = &Pin<T>

[web.git] / personal / _posts / 2018-04-05-a-formal-look-at-pinning.md

diff --git a/personal/_posts/2018-04-05-a-formal-look-at-pinning.md b/personal/_posts/2018-04-05-a-formal-look-at-pinning.md
index 0093a21525daa8672610ba596b874441120fae15..73073dec2e1aff3d4224c9699c0323a2d39daa11 100644 (file)
--- a/personal/_posts/2018-04-05-a-formal-look-at-pinning.md
+++ b/personal/_posts/2018-04-05-a-formal-look-at-pinning.md
@@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ The latter is crucial, because it means we can automatically derive `Unpin` inst
 
 ## Conclusion
 
-We have seen how the new `Pin` type can be used to give safe APIs to types like `SelfReferential`, and how we can (semi-)formally argue for the correctness of `SelfReferential` and the methods on `Pin` and `PinBox`.
+We have seen how the new `Pin` type can be used to give safe APIs to types like `SelfReferential` (which, previously, was not possible), and how we can (semi-)formally argue for the correctness of `SelfReferential` and the methods on `Pin` and `PinBox`.
 I hope I was able to shed some light both on how pinning is useful, and how we can reason about safety of a typed API in general.
 Next time, we are going to look at an extension to the pinning API proposed by @cramertj which guarantees that `drop` will be called under some circumstances, and how that is useful for intrusive collections.