Minor issue in `nth_rw`/`nth_rewrite` documentation?

Stream: new members

[Isak Colboubrani]

The nth_rw (and nth_rewrite) documentation provides the following example:

"For example,

example (h : a = 1) : a + a + a + a + a = 5 := by
nth_rw 2 3 [h]
/-
a: ℕ
h: a = 1
⊢ a + 1 + 1 + a + a = 5
-/

Notice that the second occurrence of a from the left has been rewritten by nth_rewrite."

While this statement is technically correct—the second occurrence has indeed been rewritten—wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "Notice that the second and third occurrences of a from the left have been rewritten"? Is there a specific reason for choosing the current phrasing?

[Ruben Van de Velde]

I am equally confused by the phrasing

[Kevin Buzzard]

Please make a PR!