[techdragon]

Cannot agree hard enough. Nothing is more deeply infuriating than api documentation that just expects the reader to understand what the author means. The trivial examples of everything means I never feel like I’m guessing when it comes to rust’s standard library. I dearly love working with Python and it’s many included batteries but plenty of the most complex and by extension powerful parts of the Python standard library need the kind of “show me how to do everything this is capable of” type example documentation that Rust uses. Last notable one for me was the documentation about changing stopitetation to an explicit error, and how the behaviour differed pre and post change. It took me far to long to work out what changes I needed for some library code to be updated because the documentation demonstrates a few good examples but does not cover all permutations of the behaviour they changed. It’s a low level feature so obviously they can’t show everything it can be used to do but they should have at least tried to cover all the different fundamental behaviours of the code. This is something the community are doing better with now, in part because of the excellent example the rust community is setting for documentation of a programming language.

[steveklabnik]

I'm so glad to hear this.

My guiding principle for the absolute minimum of API documentation is "If I read the documentation and want to use the thing I read, I should be able to copy/paste something from right there to get started with."

This isn't perfect (trait implementations...) but it's nice to see that it's been as helpful as I hoped it would be.

[zozbot234]

Plus in Rust, the examples are also unit tests. So you can do TDD and flesh out the documentation while you're doing it.