docs(guide/directive): fix transclusion example

The example about transclusion and scopes worked only because the order of `scope` and `element`
arguments is wrong, which means that the `name' property of the scope is not really being updated.
To really work, the directive has to define its own scope, either a new child scope or, as is more
common with transclusion, an isolated scope.

Closes #4774

1 files changed, 5 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/docs/content/guide/directive.ngdoc b/docs/content/guide/directive.ngdoc
index d45cacd3..e3547af5 100644
--- a/docs/content/guide/directive.ngdoc
+++ b/docs/content/guide/directive.ngdoc
@@ -634,8 +634,9 @@ redefines `name` as `Jeff`. What do you think the `{{name}}` binding will resolv
         return {
           restrict: 'E',
           transclude: true,
+          scope: {},
           templateUrl: 'my-dialog.html',
-          link: function (element, scope) {
+          link: function (scope, element) {
             scope.name = 'Jeff';
           }
         };
@@ -659,6 +660,9 @@ The `transclude` option changes the way scopes are nested. It makes it so that t
 transcluded directive have whatever scope is outside the directive, rather than whatever scope is on
 the inside. In doing so, it gives the contents access to the outside scope.
 
+Note that if the directive did not create its own scope, then `scope` in `scope.name = 'Jeff';` would
+reference the outside scope and we would see `Jeff` in the output.
+
 This behavior makes sense for a directive that wraps some content, because otherwise you'd have to
 pass in each model you wanted to use separately. If you have to pass in each model that you want to
 use, then you can't really have arbitrary contents, can you?