-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35.4k
doc: changed util.inspect signature #23216
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
Changes from 4 commits
605a893
127ef47
4bc07c2
cf6409f
3c391c1
57cc11a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ | ||
|
|
||
| # Util | ||
|
|
||
| <!--introduced_in=v0.10.0--> | ||
|
|
@@ -356,7 +357,9 @@ stream.on('data', (data) => { | |
| stream.write('With ES6'); | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ## util.inspect(object[, options]) | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This does not seem to be completely correct. You want to add the legacy signature which is: The options signature is not compatible with it since it's not possible to combine the legacy one and the new one. So a separate entry would be required in this case. However, I am not fond of actually documenting it. It uses boolean arguments and those are difficult to grasp without actively looking into the documentation.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Somebody rose an issue on this one , are you sure you don't want it documented
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If the signature is "difficult to grasp without actively looking into the documentation", that would seem to argue for documenting it. I'd certainly be in favor of applying a doc-only deprecation to that signature (if it's not already deprecated) though.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. (Specifically: If someone comes across
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can you tell me the correct signature so I can make another pr on this one?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I believe there's needs to be two separate signatures, one for when there is an
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. So I'm guessing the answer to @siddhant1's question is: AND |
||
|
|
||
|
vsemozhetbyt marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||
| ## util.inspect(object[,options] | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Missing space after the comma and missing closing parenthesis) Should be the same line: ## util.inspect(object[, options]) |
||
| ## util.inspect(object, [showHidden], [depth], [colors]) | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We usually enclose commas and spaces inside brackets for optional parameters: ## util.inspect(object[, showHidden][, depth][, colors])
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Or this one if optionality is incremental: ## util.inspect(object[, showHidden[, depth[, colors]]]) |
||
| <!-- YAML | ||
| added: v0.3.0 | ||
| changes: | ||
|
|
@@ -435,6 +438,7 @@ changes: | |
| function, it is used as a [compare function][]. | ||
| * Returns: {string} The representation of passed object | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This empty line seems redundant) |
||
| The `util.inspect()` method returns a string representation of `object` that is | ||
| intended for debugging. The output of `util.inspect` may change at any time | ||
| and should not be depended upon programmatically. Additional `options` may be | ||
|
|
||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.