ESLint: Enforce object destructuring #237
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
This is a follow-up to slevithan#236 We could also do array destructuring, but it looked a little weird to me, so I left it out for now.
Owner
|
IMO it's preferable to enforce the same style/rules across all JS code in main lib, addons, tests, and tools. |
josephfrazier
added a commit
to josephfrazier/xregexp
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 23, 2018
This is a follow-up to slevithan#237
slevithan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 23, 2018
This is a follow-up to #237
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 is a follow-up to #236
We could also do array destructuring, but it looked a little
weird to me, so I left it out for now.
EDIT: Enforcing array destructuring also touches files in
tools/, and I'm not sure if we have a reason not to do that. See #236 (comment)