From a333e013fc939a933f2cdc951da0ec442abeebd9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicholas Bishop Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 13:38:46 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Fix typo: intuitive -> unintuitive --- src/doc/guide-macros.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/doc/guide-macros.md b/src/doc/guide-macros.md index 65b6014b496..a7f4d103aca 100644 --- a/src/doc/guide-macros.md +++ b/src/doc/guide-macros.md @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ early_return!(input_2, [T::SpecialB]); As the above example demonstrates, `$(...)*` is also valid on the right-hand side of a macro definition. The behavior of `*` in transcription, especially in cases where multiple `*`s are nested, and multiple different -names are involved, can seem somewhat magical and intuitive at first. The +names are involved, can seem somewhat magical and unintuitive at first. The system that interprets them is called "Macro By Example". The two rules to keep in mind are (1) the behavior of `$(...)*` is to walk through one "layer" of repetitions for all of the `$name`s it contains in lockstep, and (2) each