From f6e87737e79553d05c2ef26645e1d41a63d395dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: boyned//Kampfkarren <boynedmaster@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 23:03:39 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] Try to be less confusing

---
 rfcs/syntax-safe-navigation-operator.md | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/rfcs/syntax-safe-navigation-operator.md b/rfcs/syntax-safe-navigation-operator.md
index dff9c9fe..5f520a82 100644
--- a/rfcs/syntax-safe-navigation-operator.md
+++ b/rfcs/syntax-safe-navigation-operator.md
@@ -77,9 +77,9 @@ Failing the nil-safety check early would make the entire expression nil, for ins
 The list of valid operators to follow the safe navigation operator would be:
 
 ```lua
-dog?.name == if dog == nil then nil else dog.name
-dog?.getName() == if dog == nil then nil else dog.getName()
-dog?:getName(args) == if dog == nil then nil else dog:getName(args)
+dog?.name --[[ is the same as ]] if dog == nil then nil else dog.name
+dog?.getName() --[[ is the same as ]] if dog == nil then nil else dog.getName()
+dog?:getName(args) --[[ is the same as ]] if dog == nil then nil else dog:getName(args)
 ```
 
 When using safe navigation to call a function, the short circuiting will prevent the arguments from being evaluated in the case of nil.