Skip to content
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

Fixed typos in docs/guides #297

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 8, 2021
Merged

Fixed typos in docs/guides #297

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 8, 2021

Conversation

Mr-Destructive
Copy link
Contributor

Corrected several typos and grammatical errors in the docs/guide folder.

Please review once for any further corrections.
Thank you 👍

Copy link
Collaborator

@luca-schlecker luca-schlecker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking good otherwise. 👍

docs/guides/routes.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Collaborator

@luca-schlecker luca-schlecker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for your submission. 🎉

@luca-schlecker luca-schlecker merged commit e75cc4d into CrowCpp:master Dec 8, 2021
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ The structure of a multipart request is typically consistent of:<br>
Crow supports multipart requests and responses though `crow::multipart::message`.<br>
A message can be created either by defining the headers, boundary, and individual parts and using them to create the message. or simply by reading a `crow::request`.<br><br>

Once a multipart message has been made, the individual parts can be accessed throught `mpmes.parts`, `parts` is an `std::vector`, so accessing the individual parts should be straightforward.<br>
Once a multipart message has been made, the individual parts can be accessed throughout `mpmes.parts`, `parts` is an `std::vector`, so accessing the individual parts should be straightforward.<br>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@luca-schlecker @Mr-Destructive This is acutally meant to be "through", I'll make another commit fixing it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm sorry I interpreted the meaning wrongly.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, I am sorry... I looked at it and agreed with him because I thought it was a list... My bad.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

no worries, it was my typo to begin with 😅. I'll fix it asap

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.

3 participants