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

doc: revisit gears.table #2538

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 5, 2019
Merged

doc: revisit gears.table #2538

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 5, 2019

Conversation

blueyed
Copy link
Member

@blueyed blueyed commented Jan 3, 2019

No description provided.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 3, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #2538 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2538   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   84.56%   84.56%           
=======================================
  Files         497      497           
  Lines       33714    33714           
=======================================
  Hits        28511    28511           
  Misses       5203     5203
Flag Coverage Δ
#c_code 72.97% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#functionaltests 72.81% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#lua53 87.66% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#samples 74.67% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#unittests 58.04% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
lib/gears/table.lua 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️

-- @param item The item to look for in values of the table.
-- @return The key were the item is found, or nil if not found.
-- @treturn[1] string|number The key of the item.
Copy link
Member

@actionless actionless Jan 3, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

according to your other PR numeric indexes shouldn't be used with @treturn? https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome/pull/2537/files

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When used they refer to different return values / possibilities, i.e. here it will either return the key or nil.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i see, thanks for explaining this

--- Join all tables given as parameters.
-- This will iterate all tables and insert all their keys into a new table.
--- Join all tables given as arguments.
-- This will iterate over all tables and insert their entries into a new table.
Copy link
Member

@actionless actionless Jan 3, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IMHO it is fine, but maybe "all of the tables"?
Maybe the original "iterate all tables" was fine already though?!

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

judging from the article which i referenced above it could be ... all the tables ...

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"over all tables" is just as clear as "over all the tables".

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Veratil
Thanks. This is my impression also.
Are you a native speaker?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

English is my only language sadly.

-- @param args A list of tables to join
-- @return A new table containing all keys from the arguments.
-- @tparam table ... Tables to join.
-- @treturn table A new table containing all entries from the arguments.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

all entries

the same comment as above and few more occurrences of the same pattern next on

Copy link
Member

@actionless actionless left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

with @Veratil's explanations it's now fine to merge

@mergify mergify bot merged commit a2b0b6a into awesomeWM:master Jan 5, 2019
@blueyed blueyed deleted the doc-gtable branch January 5, 2019 08:57
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants