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

docs: fix mixin docs #952

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 15, 2021
Merged

docs: fix mixin docs #952

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 15, 2021

Conversation

hraban
Copy link
Contributor

@hraban hraban commented Jan 15, 2021

Restores the original semantics introduced by afb639c (#857).

Reverts the changes to this documentation from 6e50d72 (#928) and
6c42f14 (#926).

Fixes #951.

Restores the original semantics introduced by afb639c (pinojs#857).

Reverts the changes to this documentation from 6e50d72 (pinojs#928) and
6c42f14 (pinojs#926).

Fixes pinojs#951.
Copy link
Member

@mcollina mcollina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm, thanks!

Copy link
Member

@jsumners jsumners left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Honestly, I just have to trust you here. I really don't know much about the "mixin" feature.

LGTM

@hraban
Copy link
Contributor Author

hraban commented Jan 15, 2021

Honestly, I just have to trust you here. I really don't know much about the "mixin" feature.

LGTM

Fair. Without getting into the specific feature, at all, on a more basic level: this patch actually outputs what the comments say it should. That's what the original patch did, too. The two subsequent patches were a regression in those terms.

I think the confusion came from the point that this snippet, specifically, is about what not to do. The next patches seemed to be intended to give instructions on how to use mixins. Which breaks the expected output.

For posterity: to test this patch (and the state before it): run the snippet locally. You'll see what happens.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 2, 2022

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 2, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

readme mixin doc: wrong sample code
3 participants