add "(see below)" to a reference to a new concept

This is because I observed someone reading the tutorial who thought they'd
missed something when they got to the mention of variable bindings.

This patch doesn't reflow the paragraphs so that you can see the semantic
change that I made, and a subsequent patch will reflow this paragraph.

Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/13570.
reflow with emacs fill-paragraph (fill-column 71)
Guide: Hello, cargo
Add a note that this requires `git`.
Fix capitalization of Issue.

@chris-morgan and @huonw pointed out that even though the feature
is a proper noun, we're using it in a more generic sense here.
tha -> than

Thanks @huonw :heart:
all/some

How could I forsake `rustdoc`? :sweat_smile:

Thanks @huonw.
staticly -> statically

What's funny about this one is that spellcheck caught it, but for
some reason didn't give me the right suggestion, so I assumed that it
wasn't in my dictionary. Oh well.

Thanks @P1start! :heart:
Fix IRC linkage.

Death to `here`!

Thanks @chris-morgan :heart:
StackOverflow -> Stack Overflow

Thanks @chris-morgan
Fixing link to subreddit.

Thanks @chris-morgan :heart:
Move note about $ up

Thanks @chris-morgan :heart:
TIL PATHEXT

Thanks @chris-morgan :heart:
Clarify which curly is being referred to

Thanks @chris-morgan
Note that macros != templates

Good call, @chris-morgan and @cmr!
Fix missing word and some grammar

Thanks @chris-morgan and @P1start! :heart:
C macros, not C++ templates.

@cmr rightfully points out that C macros are worse, and share the
same name.
std::io: Use re-exported pathes in examples.

We use re-exported pathes (e.g. std::io::Command) and original ones
(e.g. std::io::process::Command) together in examples now. Using
re-exported ones consistently avoids confusion.

Signed-off-by: OGINO Masanori <masanori.ogino@gmail.com>
librustc: Ensure that proc upvars have static lifetime.

Since procs do not have lifetime bounds, we must do this to maintain
safety.

This can break code that incorrectly captured references in procedure
types. Change such code to not do this, perhaps with a trait object
instead.

A better solution would be to add higher-rank lifetime support to procs.
However, this would be a lot of work for a feature we want to remove in
favor of unboxed closures. The corresponding "real fix" is #15067.

Closes #14036.

[breaking-change]
auto merge of #15190 : pcwalton/rust/proc-upvars, r=alexcrichton

Since procs do not have lifetime bounds, we must do this to maintain
safety.

This can break code that incorrectly captured references in procedure
types. Change such code to not do this, perhaps with a trait object
instead.

Closes #14036.

[breaking-change]

r? @alexcrichton