RFCs 505 and 1574 contain contradictory information about method documentation
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Markdown
- Stars
- 6.6k
- Forks
- 1.7k
- Avg merge
- 16h 14m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
In both RFCs, you can find the following phrase:
The summary line should be written in third person singular present indicative form. Basically, this means write "Returns" instead of "Return".
However, the only example given in the two RFCs is
// Wait for the main task to return, and set the process error code
// appropriately.
Personally I prefer third person. The examples should be amended.
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
Open RFCs 505 and 1574 and search for the summary-line guidance and the quoted example. Amend the examples so they consistently demonstrate the stated third-person singular convention, then reread both RFCs to confirm the guidance and examples no longer conflict.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Newbie friendliness
- 48/100