Docs: Fix misleading section in brace-style documentation #7996
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
It looks like this section was added when the brace-style rule only supported the 1tbs option, and the section hasn't been updated since then.
|
@not-an-aardvark, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @iancmyers, @BYK and @nzakas to be potential reviewers. |
|
LGTM |
platinumazure
approved these changes
Jan 29, 2017
This was referenced Feb 3, 2017
This was referenced Feb 5, 2017
eslint-deprecated
bot
added
the
archived due to age
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to item)
[x] Documentation update
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
This updates a misleading section in the
brace-styledocumentation. It looks like this section was added when the brace-style rule only supported the 1tbs option, and the section hasn't been updated since then.Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
Nothing in particular