Function builtin expanded notation

[Mouvedia]

This detail was missing from the specification.

[ericelliott]

See question.

[Mouvedia]

@ericelliott I don't wanna be annoying but better be safe than sorry: squash the commits.

[ericelliott]

Why?

[Mouvedia]

To have a cleaner history? One commit per PR is a good rule of thumb. And GitHub supports it in its interface directly.

[ericelliott]

I prefer a more complete and accurate history. Does this actually block your workflow if it's not squashed, or is it just one of your pet peeves? =)

If it impedes your workflow, please give me an example of HOW it impedes your workflow.

[Mouvedia]

Here's a blog post that explains it in details: https://blog.github.com/2016-04-01-squash-your-commits/#whats-changing

On all the open sources projects that Iv contributed to, the maintainers squash the commits that result from a review. It's not my pet peeve, it's just a convention on GitHub. I mean it was quite obvious that a and String commit message shouldn't be part of the history…

On my personal projects, I go even further and respect the conventional commits specification.

[ericelliott]

Ah, so pet peeve. ;)

[Mouvedia]

You should not be proud of having Update README.md for almost all of your commit messages :)

Well anyway, we are not on the same page on this so Ill squash myself.

[Mouvedia]

@ericelliott LGTM

[ericelliott]

You should not be proud of having Update README.md for almost all of your commit messages :)

We should be more descriptive about what feature we're updating. =)