More explicit lud-16 #105
Merged
More explicit lud-16 #105
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR tries to make lud-16 more explicit and leave less open questions.
Until now the PR linked to the static internet identifier spec, but at the same time defined rules for the that are not part of the internet identifier spec. This is okay, but I think it is good to make this really clear, that the username spec is more strict than the common internet identifier spec. That's why I added a sentence there.
Further more I added that if the SERVICE does not find the identifier, it MUST throw an error. I added this because already in first tests I could see SERVICES implement it differently, one throws an error, the other doesn't.
And lastly I capitalized some MUSTS