docs(ast): correct comment

[overlookmotel]

format_atom! takes allocator as first param. Correct a doc comment to show the correct usage.

[overlookmotel]

• docs(ast): correct comment #20837 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

---

How to use the Graphite Merge Queue

Add either label to this PR to merge it via the merge queue:

• 0-merge - adds this PR to the back of the merge queue
• hotfix - for urgent changes, fast-track this PR to the front of the merge queue

You must have a Graphite account in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link.

An organization admin has enabled the Graphite Merge Queue in this repository.

Please do not merge from GitHub as this will restart CI on PRs being processed by the merge queue.

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[overlookmotel]

Merge activity

• Mar 29, 12:36 PM UTC: The merge label '0-merge' was detected. This PR will be added to the Graphite merge queue once it meets the requirements.
• Mar 29, 12:38 PM UTC: overlookmotel added this pull request to the Graphite merge queue.
• Mar 29, 12:43 PM UTC: Merged by the Graphite merge queue.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Updates an AST doc comment to reflect the correct format_atom! macro call signature (allocator as the first argument), improving guidance for keeping RegExpPattern.text in sync with its parsed pattern.

Changes:

• Fixes the example usage of format_atom! in the RegExpPattern documentation comment to pass the allocator first.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 3.27%

❌ 1 regressed benchmark
✅ 43 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 12 skipped benchmarks¹

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	Simulation	mangler[RadixUIAdoptionSection.jsx_keep_names]	19.4 µs	20.1 µs	-3.27%

---

_{Comparing om/03-29-docs_ast_correct_comment (088d720) with main (ae03653)²}

Footnotes

1. 12 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

2. No successful run was found on main (a147878) during the generation of this report, so ae03653 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩