Skip to content

Correct sparse decoration motive example - #1468

Open
gemshrine wants to merge 1 commit into
objectionary:masterfrom
gemshrine:fix/1458-sparse-decoration-motive
Open

gemshrine wants to merge 1 commit into
objectionary:masterfrom
gemshrine:fix/1458-sparse-decoration-motive

Conversation

@gemshrine

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Fixes #1458

The sparse-decoration motive presented an if > @ application with no void arguments as a correct example. The lint intentionally reports that shape as sparse, so the documentation contradicted the rule and its own fixture.

The example now gives the formation a free void argument, which makes the decoration non-sparse under the lint's definition. The duplicate standalone example was removed so the motive has one unambiguous correct example for this case.

Verification:

  • git diff --check

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

sparse-decoration motive incorrectly lists if > @ as acceptable, conflicts with lint and pack rules

1 participant