stable Rustdoc Book suggests missing_doc_code_examples, which is unstable

[peter-lyons-kehl]

Location

src/doc/rustdoc/src/write-documentation/what-to-include.md (https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustdoc/write-documentation/what-to-include.html)

Summary

Currently, missing_doc_code_examples lint is implemented on nightly and gated with #![feature(rustdoc_missing_doc_code_examples)]. However, the lint #![deny(missing_doc_code_examples)] is suggested in the stable version of Rustdoc Book, too - but without any mention that it's a nightly feature. Is it likely to get stabilized soon (so Rustdoc Book could stay as is)?

Otherwise, shouldn't we document that (and create an issue to remove such a note from the Rustdoc Book once the feature becomes stable)? If so, I'm happy to create an issue and a PR.

Or, should this be pulled out of stable Rustdoc Book until the feature is stabilized? Is there any recommended/de-facto practice for this?
(This issue is a follow up to #109592.)

[jyn514]

missing_doc_code_examples in that section seems strange to me, I don't see how it relates to the rest of the section. It looks like this was present from the first commit where the "write documentation" chapter was added: 881820a#diff-e271d69d7408013ad53dff6ceece67373bc99f2c514cb4ca219a8f20a48e9ebc
I would personally be ok with removing it.

[camelid]

Removing the mention of missing_doc_code_examples makes sense to me as well. Note that it already has documentation (that notes that it's unstable) on the lints page: https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustdoc/lints.html#missing_doc_code_examples