Skip to content

fix: MD037/no-space-in-emphasis #410

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

fix: MD037/no-space-in-emphasis #410

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions meetings/2014/LDM-2014-02-17.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ Open question: should you be allowed a separator before the numeric-type-suffix?


# 11. Binary literals
*Approved. Already in preview. Aligns with C# vNext feature "binary literals" *
*Approved. Already in preview. Aligns with C# vNext feature "binary literals"*

It will be nice for enum literals. F# has them. We would ask the debugger to consider displaying stuff in binary as well, but that’s lower priority.
``` vb
Expand All @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ It will be nice for enum literals. F# has them. We would ask the debugger to con
Note: Integer.TryParse is a language-neutral .NET Framework function, that should not be augmented just for sake of new language-syntax. So we wouldn't want to make it work with the above syntax.

# 12. Multiline strings
*Approved. Already in preview. Parity with C#. *
*Approved. Already in preview. Parity with C#.*

``` vb
Dim x = "Hello
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ But it's better than nothing, and brings more regularity into the language.


# 16. <field:attr> on autoprops
*Approved. Aligns with C# vNext feature "field target on autoprops" *
*Approved. Aligns with C# vNext feature "field target on autoprops"*
``` vb
<field:attr> property x As Integer
<field:attr> event e As Action
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion meetings/2014/LDM-2014-10-01.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ _Resolution: Option4_. This is the most helpful to developers. You might wonder

__Piecewise initialization of structs__. In the code above, do we allow `z.z1 = 15` to assign to the _field_ of a readonly struct autoprop?
_Option1:_ Yes by threating access to "z" for purposes of definite assignment as an access of the underlying field.
_Option2: _ No because in `z.z1` the read of `z` happens via the accessor as per the principle above, and thus returns an rvalue, and hence assignment to `z.z1` can't work. Instead you will have to write `z = new Z(...)`.
_Option2:_ No because in `z.z1` the read of `z` happens via the accessor as per the principle above, and thus returns an rvalue, and hence assignment to `z.z1` can't work. Instead you will have to write `z = new Z(...)`.
_Resolution: Option2_. If we went with Option1, then readonly autoprops would end up being more expressive than settable autoprops which would be odd! Note that in VB you can still write `_z.z1 = 15` if you do want piecewise assignment.

__Virtual__. What should happen if the readonly autoprop is virtual, and its getter is overridden in a derived class?
Expand Down