Replies: 3 comments 2 replies
-
We need config for the rule then. would you like to raise PR for it, @wimski ? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
@keradus I can certainly give this a go when I find the time. And I will first have to familiarize myself with this code-base and how configuration is done for comparable rules. What would be the defaults for the various rulesets? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
2 replies
-
Closed by merge of #7626 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Let me start by quoting the opening line of the
README.md
(emphasis is mine):This would let one to assume that when applying a ruleset from a specific standard, the code would only be fixed according to that standard. This is no longer the case for spaces surrounding unary operators in PSR-12 since this PR was merged.
The PSR-12 standard says the following about spaces surrounding unary operators:
6. Operators
6.1 Unary operators
If the tool would follow the standard for the PSR-12 ruleset, you would expect increment/decrement and type casting operators to be fixed by a 'unary operator spaces' rule, but nothing else. Any further changes, which are not defined in the standard, should be up to configuration by the user.
Perhaps the rule could be made configurable in this kind of fashion:
Related sources:
0 votes ·
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions