From 4e0264f8f39fc87dd5c501237e81659654c6e50e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: sobolevn Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 13:25:13 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] Update do-notation.rst --- docs/pages/do-notation.rst | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/pages/do-notation.rst b/docs/pages/do-notation.rst index bf8a8f643..d9bb110cf 100644 --- a/docs/pages/do-notation.rst +++ b/docs/pages/do-notation.rst @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ Let's say we have a function called ``add`` which is defined like this: And we have two containers: ``IO(2)`` and ``IO(3)``. How can we easily get ``IO(5)`` in this case? -Luckily, ``IO`` defines :meth:`returns.io.IO.do` which can help us: +Luckily, ``IO`` defines :meth:`~returns.io.IO.do` which can help us: .. code:: python @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ Why don't we allow mixing different container types? One might ask, why don't we allow mixing multiple container types in a single do-notation expression? -For example, this code will not what you expect: +For example, this code will not do what you expect: .. code:: python