no need to count the usage of RFC2119 terms, just flag their presence #379
Conversation
| if (!conf.respecRFC2119) { conf.respecRFC2119 = {} }; | ||
| if (!conf.normativeReferences) conf.normativeReferences = {}; | ||
| if (!conf.informativeReferences) conf.informativeReferences = {}; | ||
| if (!conf.respecRFC2119) conf.respecRFC2119 = {}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Implied "{" "}" can lead to sadness :(
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've heard that rumour for the past twenty years; I've never seen it materialise.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You never saw this one? https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, if we were using a different language and making use of goto, and employing a nonsensical identation scheme, and distracted, and stoned from having used Python too much I agree that it could be a problem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ROTFL! Actually if you go back and look at the original pull request that implemented this change, I think we decided counting them was harmless and might at some point be valuable. I don't really care. And I wrote it. But is there a compelling reason to NOT have this information around?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not a big deal but I was in that code for other reasons and I puzzled at what those six lines were doing. If we need the information we know how to add it but, but otherwise YAGNI. It's just a clean-up patch, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
Sorry. I couldn't resist. I will merge it in.
no need to count the usage of RFC2119 terms, just flag their presence
No description provided.