You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The commit 22a3b8e introduced an inconsistency between the fund function implementation and its explanation below in the doc.
The commit removes the #[payment_amount] payment: BigUint argument in the fund function, but does not modify the text below it accordingly. Thus, the doc talks about the argument when it does not exist in the code anymore:
Notice the #[payment_amount] payment: BigUint argument. This is not a real argument, but just syntactic sugar to pass the paid sum to the function.
I did not investigated further to see if other inconsistencies exist on the page, but I figured it could be useful to signal this, just so that it is written somewhere :)
By the way, I tried to look for a documentation about #[payment_amount] for the payable annotation, but did not find it. Did I miss something?
Thank you very much!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello,
The commit 22a3b8e introduced an inconsistency between the
fund
function implementation and its explanation below in the doc.The commit removes the
#[payment_amount] payment: BigUint
argument in thefund
function, but does not modify the text below it accordingly. Thus, the doc talks about the argument when it does not exist in the code anymore:I did not investigated further to see if other inconsistencies exist on the page, but I figured it could be useful to signal this, just so that it is written somewhere :)
By the way, I tried to look for a documentation about
#[payment_amount]
for thepayable
annotation, but did not find it. Did I miss something?Thank you very much!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: