@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ for developers to want to handle errors from different operations in
52
52
the same basic way, either by reporting the error to the user or
53
53
passing the error back to their own clients.
54
54
55
- These errors will be the focus on this proposal.
55
+ These errors will be the focus of this proposal.
56
56
57
57
The final two classes of error are outside the scope of this proposal.
58
58
A **universal error ** is theoretically recoverable, but by its nature
@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ generalized ``do`` statement::
305
305
As with ``switch `` statements, Swift makes an effort to understand
306
306
whether catch clauses are exhaustive. If it can determine it is, then
307
307
the compiler considers the error to be handled. If not, the error
308
- automatically propagates out out of scope, either to a lexically
308
+ automatically propagates out of scope, either to a lexically
309
309
enclosing ``catch `` clause or out of the containing function (which must
310
310
be marked ``throws ``).
311
311
@@ -691,7 +691,7 @@ can throw, and so it must also be marked with ``try``::
691
691
}
692
692
693
693
This marking feels redundant. We want functions like
694
- ``autoreleasepool `` to feel like statements, but marks inside builtin
694
+ ``autoreleasepool `` to feel like statements, but marks inside built-in
695
695
statements like ``if `` don't require the outer statement to be marked.
696
696
It would be better if the compiler didn't require the outer ``try ``.
697
697
0 commit comments