Enhancements to Aztec Documentation: Grammar and Clarity Improvements#9688
Enhancements to Aztec Documentation: Grammar and Clarity Improvements#9688Noisyxl wants to merge 3 commits intoAztecProtocol:masterfrom Noisyxl:master
Conversation
avm-transpiler/src/instructions.rs
Outdated
| pub indirect: Option<AvmOperand>, | ||
|
|
||
| /// Some instructions have a destination xor input tag | ||
| /// Some instructions have a destination or input tag |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using ‘or’ is more appropriate here, as it indicates that the instruction can have either a destination tag or an input tag, but not necessarily both.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the 'not necessarily both' part is what 'xor' would mean, though :) (exclusive-or)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're right! 'XOR' captures the idea that only one of the tags can be present, but using 'or' might make it clearer to those who aren't familiar with the terminology. Maybe we could stick with 'or' for simplicity?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The tag concept changed since this was written. Right now only 2 opcodes have (and must have) a tag: SET and CAST. In both cases, the tag is the expected destination type to be set. All other opcodes don't have (and cannot have) a tag.
I'm ok with "Some instructions have a tag, it's usage will depend on the instruction." at this level. I'm also ok with removing "xor" since it's not real english.
Thanks donatik27 for #9688. Our policy is to redo typo changes to dissuade metric farming. This is an automated script. --------- Co-authored-by: Noisy <125606576+donatik27@users.noreply.github.com>
4 participants
In this pull request, I have made improvements to the Aztec documentation by correcting several grammatical errors to enhance clarity and user-friendliness of the code