I think the authoring guide should have some guidelines on referring to rustc lints.
Generally we prefer to avoid referring to them, but in several cases it is a disservice to not mention them. It would be helpful to have guidance on how to balance those kinds of references.
Some examples of lints that are currently referred to:
unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn
ffi_unwind_calls
unused_variables
unused_must_use
unfulfilled_lint_expectations
overflowing_literals
There's other cases where it currently doesn't refer to the specific lint, for example the #[deprecated] attribute, which arguably would benefit for a link to it.
As part of the attribute rework, we have a bunch of notes about rustc linting about certain things (like unused attributes, or future-incompatible warnings), but they don't refer to the lint by name.
I think the authoring guide should have some guidelines on referring to rustc lints.
Generally we prefer to avoid referring to them, but in several cases it is a disservice to not mention them. It would be helpful to have guidance on how to balance those kinds of references.
Some examples of lints that are currently referred to:
unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fnffi_unwind_callsunused_variablesunused_must_useunfulfilled_lint_expectationsoverflowing_literalsThere's other cases where it currently doesn't refer to the specific lint, for example the
#[deprecated]attribute, which arguably would benefit for a link to it.As part of the attribute rework, we have a bunch of notes about
rustclinting about certain things (like unused attributes, or future-incompatible warnings), but they don't refer to the lint by name.