From ce907ca65c5ef1b7d387bd4c0566eaab0b381b4a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: ccuser44 <68124053+ccuser44@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 09:54:53 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Make concession on moot point

---
 docs/table.clone-locked-metatables.md | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/docs/table.clone-locked-metatables.md b/docs/table.clone-locked-metatables.md
index 31a2a93..71fe195 100644
--- a/docs/table.clone-locked-metatables.md
+++ b/docs/table.clone-locked-metatables.md
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ This is a valid concern. The issue at hand being an avenue to assign metatables
 However, this is not an issue as the changes proposed in this RFC do not allow for such behavior.
 
 Another potential drawback that could be levied at this proposal is a reduced debuggability of not hard-failing when the expected behavior would be to create a shallow copy with the metatable of the original table.
-However, this point is most certainly moot in practice, as most users are very likely not even aware, or desire the fact that `table.clone` can assign the metatables of the original table to the clone.
+However, in practice the benefits of this RFC outweigh the drawbacks regarding debuggability, as most users are very likely not even aware, or desire the fact that `table.clone` can assign the metatables of the original table to the clone.
 
 ## Alternatives