From e16f2bbc017933b83385942bb83d23151495f0f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Anton-4 <17049058+Anton-4@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 18:19:27 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Num.maxNat does not exist

Signed-off-by: Anton-4 <17049058+Anton-4@users.noreply.github.com>
---
 crates/compiler/builtins/roc/Num.roc | 5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/crates/compiler/builtins/roc/Num.roc b/crates/compiler/builtins/roc/Num.roc
index 2e72ce7f0c0..2249cd72c22 100644
--- a/crates/compiler/builtins/roc/Num.roc
+++ b/crates/compiler/builtins/roc/Num.roc
@@ -1433,12 +1433,11 @@ toU32 : Int * -> U32
 toU64 : Int * -> U64
 toU128 : Int * -> U128
 
-## Converts an [Int] to a [Nat]. If the given number doesn't fit in [Nat], it will be truncated.
+## Converts an [Int] to a [Nat]. If the given number doesn't fit in [Nat], it will be truncated!
 ## Since [Nat] has a different maximum number depending on the system you're building
 ## for, this may give a different answer on different systems.
 ##
-## For example, on a 32-bit system, `Num.maxNat` will return the same answer as
-## `Num.maxU32`. This means that calling `Num.toNat 9_000_000_000` on a 32-bit
+## For example, on a 32-bit system, calling `Num.toNat 9_000_000_000` on a 32-bit
 ## system will return `Num.maxU32` instead of 9 billion, because 9 billion is
 ## higher than `Num.maxU32` and will not fit in a [Nat] on a 32-bit system.
 ##