-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
Clarify option literalness details #1027
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
Clarify option literalness details #1027
Conversation
@@ -395,7 +397,7 @@ For each _option_: | |||
1. If supported, emit a _Bad Option_ error. | |||
1. Else: | |||
1. If the _option_ value consists of a _literal_: | |||
1. Include that information in `rv`. | |||
1. Mark `rv` as a literal option value. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like this wording change very much
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This change does seem good.
@@ -395,7 +397,7 @@ For each _option_: | |||
1. If supported, emit a _Bad Option_ error. | |||
1. Else: | |||
1. If the _option_ value consists of a _literal_: | |||
1. Include that information in `rv`. | |||
1. Mark `rv` as a literal option value. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This change does seem good.
spec/formatting.md
Outdated
@@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ from the surrounding text. | |||
To allow for _function handlers_ to ensure that certain _option_ values are set by _literals_, | |||
the _resolved value_ of each _option_ value MUST include information about | |||
whether the _option_ value is a _literal_ or a _variable_. | |||
Note that this information is irrelevant for a _resolved value_ that is not used as the value of an _option_. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm. Is it perhaps not clear that "option value" is a syntax feature? This phrase seems to imply that a resolved value could be an option value, and that doesn't really make sense.
We probably ought to explicitly define option value as a term in the Syntax section.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We probably ought to explicitly define option value as a term in the Syntax section.
Absolutely!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's do that in a separate PR.
Does this need to be in 47? It looks 47-ish, as I believe it is non-normative and small. Changing to option value as a term is also a candidate. |
Non-normative changes: typos, clarifications, even new definitions, etc we can do; we just need to notify the TC. Normative changes that are important need approval by the TC. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am okay with the wording proposed, pace we work in option value. I made a wording suggestion, however, that might improve the paragraph?
Co-authored-by: Addison Phillips <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suggest one further change, but not a blocker.
Co-authored-by: Mark Davis <[email protected]>
Fixes #1026