-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.2k
[Docs] Fixed link to internal-function-calls #13262
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
[Docs] Fixed link to internal-function-calls #13262
Conversation
docs/contracts/functions.rst
Outdated
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ Function parameters can be used as any other local variable and they can also be | |||
parameter. This functionality is possible if you enable the ABI coder v2 | |||
by adding ``pragma abicoder v2;`` to your source file. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is quite outdated - abicoder v2 has been the default for a while. We should convert this note into "until version ... it was not possible to...".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the fix! The change looks good but I agree with @chriseth that it would be good to update the part about ABI encoder too while we're touching this part.
Hi, thanks for the review and comments! |
docs/contracts/functions.rst
Outdated
Until version 0.6.0 it was not possible to use a multi-dimensional array or a struct | ||
as an input for an :ref:`external function<external-function-calls>`. | ||
``abicoder v2`` made it possible and it's been enabled by default since version 0.8.0 | ||
(before that we had to enable it with ``pragma abicoder v2;``). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would not use we
here but you
instead, that's more consistent with how the document started addressing the reader, e.g. in line 58 we also use you
Other than that, LGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The coding style CI failure is due to trailing spaces in line 77 and 78
@Marenz thanks for the review. I changed "we" to "you" and removed trailing spaces (CI code style now is ok). |
If you do a rebase on the last changes in the |
f5e054e
to
2e27d06
Compare
The code was rebased. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, but the review fixes should be squashed into the original commit.
I'll squash and merge.
2e27d06
to
bbf6ecf
Compare
Fixed link in function.rst documentation file.