Skip to content

docs: Fix toolchain implementation file name #2512

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 18, 2024

Conversation

nicholasjng
Copy link
Contributor

@nicholasjng nicholasjng commented Dec 18, 2024

The code example comment uses toolchain_impls (extra s), while the target references
use toolchain_impl (no s). This made me go back and double-check when reading the
custom toolchain example (especially the definitions in L425ff).

Remove the extra "s" in the comment so it matches what the target references are.

It's pedantic, but it made me go back and double-check when reading the
custom toolchain example, so I think it's worth preventing this confusion.
@rickeylev
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks! Nope, not pedantic at all -- it's confusing if the file names aren't consistent.

re: visual bars: I'd be +1 on that. There's a lot of content in the example, so easy to get lost in what file something is for.

@rickeylev rickeylev added this pull request to the merge queue Dec 18, 2024
Merged via the queue into bazel-contrib:main with commit 9306393 Dec 18, 2024
4 checks passed
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2025
…de (#2563)

This improves readability by clearly marking the beginnings and ends of
the three involved source files.

Follow-up of #2512, as discussed.
@nicholasjng nicholasjng deleted the fix-impl-filename branch January 15, 2025 10:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants