[dtolnay]

> Pins are very often `Unpin`, but this isn't relevant to their function.

This idea is what I've seen get a lot of people lost, but it's pretty natural. By analogy, a DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE sign doesn't itself need to be dangerous or high voltage in order to be useful. If your DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE sign (the sign) is dangerous or high voltage, you'd probably want a second DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE sign pointing out this fact about the first sign. The same for Pin: if you're wanting the pinned pointer (the pointer itself) to not be Unpin, your pinned pointer would need to be pinned by some second pinned pointer.

[Tamschi]

This is why I insist on never calling it "pinned pointer" in the post, even if not explicitly. I'm aware the term is used in the standard library docs (for context: `Pin`'s tagline is "A pinned pointer."), but in my eyes that's a misnomer 99% of the time.

It might be a good idea to split the wording thoroughly and officially (into "pinned" vs. "pin"/"pinning …"), since this is such a common sticking point and seemingly mixing concepts right now. (I.e. "pinned pointers" are (usually) "`Pin`-wrapped" but not "pinned in place". It only becomes more muddled once you have inherently-pinning or "add-on" pins without `Pin` in their type.)