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

Surrogate pairs examples in the Iterables lesson should be removed #3221

Open
BarokDG opened this issue Oct 5, 2022 · 8 comments
Open

Surrogate pairs examples in the Iterables lesson should be removed #3221

BarokDG opened this issue Oct 5, 2022 · 8 comments

Comments

@BarokDG
Copy link

BarokDG commented Oct 5, 2022

The lessons on surrogate pairs have been moved from "Datatypes/Strings" to "MIscellaneous/Unicode, String internals" but there are examples mentioning surrogate pairs on the Iterables lesson. It might be confusing for readers who haven't read the lesson on surrogate pairs before hand.

@joaquinelio
Copy link
Member

mmm..
The info is relevant and I think it 's the correct place to put it

not so confusig, it s a discrete line
I was suggesting an anchor link there instead,

I was just making a PR but I didnt test yet

@joaquinelio
Copy link
Member

something lilke this

And it works correctly with - the tricky :) - [info:surrogate-pairs] !

adding the anchor in unicode article

didnt finish, stays as suggestion.

@joaquinelio
Copy link
Member

or, you are saying to leave the line
but removing the examples?

the link would be useful too

@BarokDG
Copy link
Author

BarokDG commented Oct 5, 2022

A link to the lesson on surrogates might work yeah. My problem with the info being in the iterators lesson is that we're learning how to specifically work with surrogate pairs without first learning what surrogate pairs are.

@joaquinelio
Copy link
Member

you are right.
"it works ok " + link is fine,

but later it goes a little deeper.

I wouldnt remove nor change the location of the info
but rather add a little note "rare & tricky" just before the link

well, Ilya has the say

@BarokDG
Copy link
Author

BarokDG commented Oct 5, 2022

Yeah that sounds good as well. Thanks a lot for responding so quickly🙌🏽.

@joaquinelio
Copy link
Member

Yeah that sounds good as well. Thanks a lot for responding so quickly🙌🏽.

because to cut off that part from strings was my idea... 😟

@BarokDG
Copy link
Author

BarokDG commented Oct 6, 2022

I think that was a correct decision. I read half of javascript.info 10 months ago but had to stop because of school and now I'm picking it up again. In my opinion it's better without it. I remember thinking it was advanced and forgetting about it quickly after I read it. The strings lesson was better this time around. I felt I learned all I needed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants