From 7225167e0ea8c2154456ad34e5407c62420e0fd7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: conectado Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2025 10:57:45 -0300 Subject: [PATCH] fix typo in pin write up --- content/writeups/pin-is-neccesary.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/content/writeups/pin-is-neccesary.md b/content/writeups/pin-is-neccesary.md index fe09bcb..967c1c7 100644 --- a/content/writeups/pin-is-neccesary.md +++ b/content/writeups/pin-is-neccesary.md @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ Everything looks nice except for that `Pin::new_unchecked` which we created with I've read a lot about how `async` creates internal state machines that keep self-referential structs that, if moved, everything could be disastrous. -But how does this look? How can we fail to enforce the safety requirements of `Pin`, specifically, with futues? Let's see what happens if you move a pinned value after it's created and polled! +But how does this look? How can we fail to enforce the safety requirements of `Pin`, specifically, with futures? Let's see what happens if you move a pinned value after it's created and polled! Now let's rewrite this in the following way.