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

doc: update readline asyncIterator docs #28425

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 27, 2019
Merged

Conversation

cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor

@cjihrig cjihrig commented Jun 25, 2019

This commit:

  • Removes an unnecessary stability index entry. These generally are not included for Stable entries.
  • Reformat for-await-of.
  • Remove mention of experimental status that is not true anymore.
  • Remove use of "we"
Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. readline Issues and PRs related to the built-in readline module. labels Jun 25, 2019
doc/api/readline.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/api/readline.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/api/readline.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I left some suggestions for more radical revisions of the text, but it's totally 👍 as-is.

@cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor Author

cjihrig commented Jun 26, 2019

cjihrig added 2 commits June 27, 2019 13:51
This commit:
- Removes an unnecessary stability index entry. These generally
  are not included for Stable entries.
- Remove mention of experimental status that is not true anymore.
- Remove use of "we"
- Remove use of relative time phrasing.
- Misc cleanup.

PR-URL: nodejs#28425
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Instead of `for`-`await`-`of`, prefer `for await...of`.

PR-URL: nodejs#28425
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
@cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor Author

cjihrig commented Jun 27, 2019

@cjihrig cjihrig closed this Jun 27, 2019
@cjihrig cjihrig deleted the rl-async-iter branch June 27, 2019 18:01
@cjihrig cjihrig merged commit 6045fbb into nodejs:master Jun 27, 2019
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 2, 2019
This commit:
- Removes an unnecessary stability index entry. These generally
  are not included for Stable entries.
- Remove mention of experimental status that is not true anymore.
- Remove use of "we"
- Remove use of relative time phrasing.
- Misc cleanup.

PR-URL: #28425
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 2, 2019
Instead of `for`-`await`-`of`, prefer `for await...of`.

PR-URL: #28425
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 2, 2019
This commit:
- Removes an unnecessary stability index entry. These generally
  are not included for Stable entries.
- Remove mention of experimental status that is not true anymore.
- Remove use of "we"
- Remove use of relative time phrasing.
- Misc cleanup.

PR-URL: #28425
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 2, 2019
Instead of `for`-`await`-`of`, prefer `for await...of`.

PR-URL: #28425
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
@targos targos mentioned this pull request Jul 2, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. readline Issues and PRs related to the built-in readline module.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants