Use consistent wording in docs, use is 0 instead of is zero

[timvisee]

In documentation, wording of "rhs is zero" and "rhs is 0" is intermixed. This is especially visible here.

This changes all occurrences to "rhs is 0". This variant has more occurrences in the code base. On top of that, rhs refers to a numeric value.

[rustbot]

r? @jhpratt

rustbot has assigned @jhpratt.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[jhpratt]

This variant has more occurrences in the code base.

A quick rg shows that this is just barely true, 55/45 at best.

On top of that, rhs refers to a numeric value.

"zero" is still a numeric value, though?

---

Personally I find "zero" easier to read, so if anything I'd prefer to standardize on that. Forcing a standardization when there are two alternatives nearly evenly split, though, is almost certainly a never-ending effort.

[timvisee]

I have no strong feeling about either variant, and am also happy to close this PR.

I just noticed this inconsistency while scrolling through the documentation and figured, lets suggest a simple change. I understand it'll be a never-ending effort to keep it like this and am not suggesting to enforce it.

Personally I find "zero" easier to read, so if anything I'd prefer to standardize on that.

I have to agree, "zero" is easier to read.

@jhpratt Shall I switch gears and change these to "zero", or do you prefer me to close the PR and leave it as is?

A quick rg shows that this is just barely true, 55/45 at best.

I did an exact match in which case I saw 40 matches for 0, and 14 for zero.