Consistent punctuation in command usages#5139
Conversation
|
Hi! Thanks for the pull request. Please ensure that this change is linked to an issue by mentioning an issue number in the description of the pull request. If this pull request would close the issue, please put the word 'Fixes' before the issue number somewhere in the pull request body. If this is a tiny change like fixing a typo, feel free to ignore this message. |
|
Also, while going through the documentation, I noticed that the Example:
Is this intentional? To me, this looks strange, at least in the case of Let me know if I should open up an issue to discuss this topic. |
mislav
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This all looks good! Thank you
@kevhlee can you clarify this sentence, please? I'm not sure I understood what it's saying. |
@kevhlee This is intentional. I've reviewed the examples you've shared and it doesn't seem particularly jarring to me! The idea is that the command usage line is presented early in the documentation; that's why the long description is only shown after. |
|
Hi @mislav and @waldyrious,
I see. Thanks for the clarification/confirmation! Just wanted to make sure. |
Hello,
I made the punctuation more consistent across the different long command descriptions. Specifically, I made sure that the long descriptions utilize periods to distinguish them from short ones. I also made some minor spelling, grammatical, and spacing corrections.
I think the changes I'm making are harmless enough that I do not need to open up an issue, but let me know if that's not the case. Let me know if I need to make any adjustments.
Thanks,
Kevin