Ternary formatting
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- OCaml
- Stars
- 10.3k
- Forks
- 438
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Assuming #1700 isn't implemented (I'm not against that change btw) can the formatting of ternaries be improved. For the common if/else formatting, it would preferable to follow facebook standard which is:
booleanCheck
? trueResult
: falseResult;
which is far more readable vs. the current formatting:
booleanCheck ?
trueResult : falseResult;
For the nested ternaries, I'd love to see a JS style pattern match layout used, though I'm sure this is more contentious. For instance:
booleanCheck1
? trueResult1 :
booleanCheck2
? trueResult2 :
booleanCheck3
? trueResult3 :
fallbackResult;
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
The issue names no files, tests, or entry points. Start by locating the ternary-formatting implementation in the Reason codebase and compare its output with the two examples. Done means the common ternary layout matches the requested form; nested ternaries should be evaluated separately because the issue describes that pattern as contentious.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- javascript, ocaml
- Domain
- tooling
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100