docs: fixed a mismatch in the name of the function referenced in the micropayment example #15473
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
|
Thank you for your contribution to the Solidity compiler! A team member will follow up shortly. If you haven't read our contributing guidelines and our review checklist before, please do it now, this makes the reviewing process and accepting your contribution smoother. If you have any questions or need our help, feel free to post them in the PR or talk to us directly on the #solidity-dev channel on Matrix. |
ryabykhms
force-pushed
the
docs-example-issue
branch
from
8166a4c
to
8ed8419
Compare
…micropayment example
ryabykhms
force-pushed
the
docs-example-issue
branch
from
8ed8419
to
5a61fe3
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Updated docs.
The micropayment example specifies that we need to see the
SimplePaymentChannelfunction in the contract at the end of the section. This is likely a holdover from previous versions, when the constructor had the same name as the contract. I've fixed it.