New rule: number-trailing-zero

[davidtheclark]

Do we think it's reasonable that a person might want to require trailing zeros?

If not, maybe this should be number-no-trailing-zero.

[MoOx]

Do we think it's reasonable that a person might want to require trailing zeros?

We never know what people might want to do :/

number-no-trailing-zero lgtm anyway.

[jeddy3]

We never know what people might want to do :/

Ha, indeed.

If not, maybe this should be number-no-trailing-zero.

Yeah, I wasn't sure when I converted it to the number-trailing-zero format as it was originally as *-no-* rule. I think I did it for:

a. Consistency with the other number rules.
b. To give the user the choice (as @MoOx pointed out).

If it's no more work to support number-trailing-zero than number-no-trailing-zero, then I think it's worth doing. But if it's more work than number-no-trailing-zero, then I don't think it's worth it for now.

I'm easy either way :)

[davidtheclark]

Well, it's only a little more work; but it is more code & tests to maintain in the long run. Also it's a representative problem: we can't enforce all possible rules, so we have to practice drawing the line (which can always be revised based on user requests). I think we should leave it as *-no-* until somebody requests otherwise, because I'm having a really hard time imagining that somebody would want to insist trailing zeros everywhere.

[jeddy3]

Agreed. Seems like a good one to draw the line with.