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] Enhanced RDoc for #cp_lr #71

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 20, 2022
Merged

[DOC] Enhanced RDoc for #cp_lr #71

merged 1 commit into from
May 20, 2022

Conversation

BurdetteLamar
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@BurdetteLamar
Copy link
Member Author

FileUtils doc is tough!

@BurdetteLamar
Copy link
Member Author

@jeremyevans, I know you prefer no call-seq for a Ruby file. It might look a loy nicer to use them here so we can say **options. Your thoughts?

@jeremyevans
Copy link
Contributor

I think we would always prefer to list explicit options instead of using **options. We would only want to use **options in the case that the method actually accepts all options. Can you give an example of a call-seq line you would like to add?

@BurdetteLamar
Copy link
Member Author

I think we would always prefer to list explicit options instead of using **options. We would only want to use **options in the case that the method actually accepts all options. Can you give an example of a call-seq line you would like to add?

Having these four in the ginned call-seq makes it very big:

- dereference_root: false - does not follow soft links.

- noop: true - does not create links.

- remove_destination: true - removes +dest+ before creating links.

- verbose: true - prints an equivalent command:

@jeremyevans
Copy link
Contributor

Big and precise default call-seq is preferable to smaller and less precise manual call-seq, IMO.

@BurdetteLamar
Copy link
Member Author

Big and precise default call-seq is preferable to smaller and less precise manual call-seq, IMO.

K, will leave alone.

@BurdetteLamar
Copy link
Member Author

@jeremyevans, I think @peterzhu2118 is away. Will you be reviewing this one?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants