Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

doc: remove default parameter value from header #33752

Closed
wants to merge 0 commits into from

Conversation

Trott
Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott commented Jun 5, 2020

In the docs, we specify the default value of function parameters in the
list below the header. There is one exception where we use default
parameter notation. Change that instance to be like the rest of the docs
instead.

I rather like the default parameter notation, and I get why we didn't
use it to begin with. (The notation didn't exist in JavaScript at the
time.) I wouldn't mind switching to it, but that would result in big
churn. That can be a separate topic of discussion. For now, though,
let's get the docs consistent.

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added cluster Issues and PRs related to the cluster subsystem. doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. labels Jun 5, 2020
@Trott Trott added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Jun 5, 2020
Trott added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 7, 2020
In the docs, we specify the default value of function parameters in the
list below the header. There is one exception where we use default
parameter notation. Change that instance to be like the rest of the docs
instead.

I rather like the default parameter notation, and I get why we didn't
use it to begin with. (The notation didn't exist in JavaScript at the
time.) I wouldn't mind switching to it, but that would result in big
churn. That can be a separate topic of discussion. For now, though,
let's get the docs consistent.

PR-URL: #33752
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
@Trott Trott closed this Jun 7, 2020
@Trott Trott force-pushed the default-param-doc branch from 1ace6fb to 55d9833 Compare June 7, 2020 18:12
@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Jun 7, 2020

Landed in 55d9833

@Trott Trott deleted the default-param-doc branch June 7, 2020 18:12
codebytere pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 18, 2020
In the docs, we specify the default value of function parameters in the
list below the header. There is one exception where we use default
parameter notation. Change that instance to be like the rest of the docs
instead.

I rather like the default parameter notation, and I get why we didn't
use it to begin with. (The notation didn't exist in JavaScript at the
time.) I wouldn't mind switching to it, but that would result in big
churn. That can be a separate topic of discussion. For now, though,
let's get the docs consistent.

PR-URL: #33752
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
@codebytere codebytere mentioned this pull request Jun 28, 2020
codebytere pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 30, 2020
In the docs, we specify the default value of function parameters in the
list below the header. There is one exception where we use default
parameter notation. Change that instance to be like the rest of the docs
instead.

I rather like the default parameter notation, and I get why we didn't
use it to begin with. (The notation didn't exist in JavaScript at the
time.) I wouldn't mind switching to it, but that would result in big
churn. That can be a separate topic of discussion. For now, though,
let's get the docs consistent.

PR-URL: #33752
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
codebytere pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 9, 2020
In the docs, we specify the default value of function parameters in the
list below the header. There is one exception where we use default
parameter notation. Change that instance to be like the rest of the docs
instead.

I rather like the default parameter notation, and I get why we didn't
use it to begin with. (The notation didn't exist in JavaScript at the
time.) I wouldn't mind switching to it, but that would result in big
churn. That can be a separate topic of discussion. For now, though,
let's get the docs consistent.

PR-URL: #33752
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
@codebytere codebytere mentioned this pull request Jul 13, 2020
codebytere pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2020
In the docs, we specify the default value of function parameters in the
list below the header. There is one exception where we use default
parameter notation. Change that instance to be like the rest of the docs
instead.

I rather like the default parameter notation, and I get why we didn't
use it to begin with. (The notation didn't exist in JavaScript at the
time.) I wouldn't mind switching to it, but that would result in big
churn. That can be a separate topic of discussion. For now, though,
let's get the docs consistent.

PR-URL: #33752
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. cluster Issues and PRs related to the cluster subsystem. doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants