Skip to content

Commit 00997d7

Browse files
committed
Fix typos in RFCs 3251-3309
1 parent 76d90c9 commit 00997d7

File tree

2 files changed

+2
-2
lines changed

2 files changed

+2
-2
lines changed

text/3289-source_replacement_ambiguity.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ error: crates-io is replaced: use `--registry replacement` or `--registry crates
6363

6464
### Change 3: credentials are only sent to the same registry
6565
If the `crates-io` source is replaced with another remote registry, the credentials for
66-
`crates-io` are never sent to the replacement registry. This makes `crates-io` consistant
66+
`crates-io` are never sent to the replacement registry. This makes `crates-io` consistent
6767
with alternative registries and ensures credentials are only sent to the registry they are
6868
associated with.
6969

text/3307-de-rfc-type-ascription.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Syntax isn't the only reason; while type ascription is probably a good idea, a f
2727
# Guide-level obfuscation
2828
[guide-level-obfuscation]: #guide-level-obfuscation
2929

30-
The `:` type ascription syntax would be removed from the nightly language. It is up to the compiler team whether they wish to remove it completely from the compiler (or perhaps just make it unparseable and use some magical unstable `ascript!()` macro in the meantime so that it is testable).
30+
The `:` type ascription syntax would be removed from the nightly language. It is up to the compiler team whether they wish to remove it completely from the compiler (or perhaps just make it unparsable and use some magical unstable `ascript!()` macro in the meantime so that it is testable).
3131

3232
This does not prevent future type ascription RFCs from happening, however they must propose the feature from first principles, and justify their choice of syntax. They are, of course, free to copy the work or text of the previous RFC.
3333

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)