21 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
21 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
|
=== On 2015-03-25T20:23:33Z Evgeny Mandrikov Wrote:
|
||
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] I slightly adjusted description and message.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2015-03-26T14:06:04Z Ann Campbell Wrote:
|
||
|
|
\[~evgeny.mandrikov] I put the message back the way it was - your version was a repetition of the title without the "The" at the front.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Also updated description.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2015-03-26T14:12:53Z Evgeny Mandrikov Wrote:
|
||
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] Thanks! LGTM.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2018-02-16T19:44:12Z Alban Auzeill Wrote:
|
||
|
|
\[~freddy.mallet] I removed this rule from the "Common Rule: Yes" because it is deprecated in favor of [RSPEC-1871] that is also part of the "Common Rule: Yes"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2018-02-19T10:53:30Z Freddy Mallet Wrote:
|
||
|
|
I see your point [~alban.auzeill] and at the same time I'm pretty sure that few implementations of RSPEC-1871 raise an issue when a ternary operator returns the same value regardless of the condition as initially RSPEC-1871 was only targeting the ``++switch++`` and ``++if++`` control statements. But fine.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2018-03-09T16:04:34Z Freddy Mallet Wrote:
|
||
|
|
In fact [~alban.auzeill], this RSPEC is not deprecated by RSPEC-1871 but by RSPEC-3923 and indeed all implementations of RSPEC-3923 already cover the case of ternary operator. So no need to touche anything. Thanks.
|
||
|
|
|