Yes guys, I understand you both. My comments are directed at the angle of
discussion that the spec *should* **require** periods. My argument is that
they don't need to be explicitly required... but the spec doesn't care if
they *are* used. The spec should only care about the two CRLFs
Yes guys, I understand you both. My comments are directed at the angle of
discussion that the spec *should* **require** periods. My argument is that
they don't need to be explicitly required... but the spec doesn't care if
they *are* used. The spec should only care about the two CRLFs
Just to make things clear, the "complaint" in my first comment wasn't about
the fact that the spec should require full stops, but only about the fact
that the PR supposedly created to correct the misleading
2-line-breaks-after-summary recommendation, was also deleting full stops
from lots of
And I hereby declare the vote closed, as of midnight.
With this, PSR-18 is approved with an unanimous vote from the CC! I'll
address the relevant PRs this morning; since it was discussed elsewhere,
I'll add references to the implementations in the meta doc.
Il giorno sabato 27 ottobre 2018
+1
Zitat von Joe T. :
For what it's worth...
The requirement for my team is that any time a function call
spans multiple lines, /ALL/ arguments must be split to individual
lines, and any additional formatting for the arguments goes
according to their own rules.
>
> My understanding is that HTTPlug was always the reference and it looked
> like from this post that it wasn't enough.
>
Well, that's correct, as in: it wasn't enough by itself because we needed
at least another reference implementation. ;-)
Anyway, I think everything has been sorted out now,
If enough people feel strongly about requiring the period, I won't stand in
the way... but I think it's overkill for the spec. I think just saying
that "if any content (Description, tags) follows the Summary, there MUST be
two CRLFs delineating the Summary from the rest" should be sufficient. I
