From 46ffee68f2a482ecbc7cf2d684f43b4884312a9f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ralf Jung Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 15:09:56 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] consistently separate footnotes from text --- personal/_posts/2017-06-06-MIR-semantics.md | 2 ++ personal/_posts/2017-06-09-mutexguard-sync.md | 1 + personal/_posts/2018-01-31-sharing-for-a-lifetime.md | 2 ++ personal/_posts/2018-07-13-arc-synchronization.md | 2 ++ 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/personal/_posts/2017-06-06-MIR-semantics.md b/personal/_posts/2017-06-06-MIR-semantics.md index 4221da5..c7fbbc9 100644 --- a/personal/_posts/2017-06-06-MIR-semantics.md +++ b/personal/_posts/2017-06-06-MIR-semantics.md @@ -176,3 +176,5 @@ There will be a tension between the semantics being "conservative enough" such t There will be back and forth between various alternatives, and in the end, hopefully there will be a compromise that everybody can accept. Happy safe hacking! + +#### Footnotes diff --git a/personal/_posts/2017-06-09-mutexguard-sync.md b/personal/_posts/2017-06-09-mutexguard-sync.md index 456d289..2fe628a 100644 --- a/personal/_posts/2017-06-09-mutexguard-sync.md +++ b/personal/_posts/2017-06-09-mutexguard-sync.md @@ -129,3 +129,4 @@ However, I hope I convinced you that if we don't act, errors like the one descri That said, such decisions are of course going to go through the usual RFC process. It's certainly possible that someone comes up with a compromise that preserves some of the usefulness of auto traits, without putting safety at risk. +#### Footnotes 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 b07a334..e3bcce5 100644 --- a/personal/_posts/2018-01-31-sharing-for-a-lifetime.md +++ b/personal/_posts/2018-01-31-sharing-for-a-lifetime.md @@ -156,3 +156,5 @@ I honestly don't know, but I had to think of this a while back when I read [this If you have any comments or thoughts on this, please join the [discussion in the Rust forums](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/sharing-for-a-lifetime/6675)! I'd also be interested in feedback on how understandable this post is; this is my first attempt at translating research results into a blog post. + +#### Footnotes diff --git a/personal/_posts/2018-07-13-arc-synchronization.md b/personal/_posts/2018-07-13-arc-synchronization.md index 033d56e..a91f8b2 100644 --- a/personal/_posts/2018-07-13-arc-synchronization.md +++ b/personal/_posts/2018-07-13-arc-synchronization.md @@ -190,3 +190,5 @@ We were realistic enough to find [another bug]({% post_url 2017-06-09-mutexguard Hai and Jacques-Henri are currently working on remedying this particular simplification by extending the first RustBelt paper to also cover weak memory, and that's when they ran into this problem. **Update:** Turns out Servo has a [copy of `Arc`](https://doc.servo.org/servo_arc/index.html) that [has the same problem](https://github.com/servo/servo/issues/21186). So we got two bugs for the price of one. :) **/Update** + +#### Footnotes -- 2.30.2