Re: boo-boo in run docs?

On 11/6/25 1:57 AM, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> It doesn't need to be; the documentation of `run` already points to
> the documentation of `Proc`, as you point out.

In that case, "run's" documentation should have ended at
the Proc link.  None of the examples should have been
included.  No need for further discussion.