wording adjusted for consistency in description of loop operation #333
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
This makes sense to me, thanks for your PR! |
rgaiacs
pushed a commit
to rgaiacs/swc-python-novice-inflammation
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2017
…ectives Examples of learning objectives
maxim-belkin
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2018
Makefile: fix typo in clean-rmd rule
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The characters in a word were described in two different ways here (in L140 and L141, the characters were described as variables in a collection, and in L149, the word was described as the variable).
I have changed the wording on lines 140 and 141 to be a little less confusing. Open to suggestions for different wording, but I think it should be consistent.