You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Thanks for the great product! I have a small bug to point out.
When run with the Google Style package, Vale incorrectly flags the past progressive tense (was/were + verb root + -ing suffix) as passive voice. Without having checked the source code, I assume this is because "passive voice" is coded as any past tense form of "to be" + any verb form.
Example: "Yesterday, I was walking to the park." Vale will return suggestion In general, use active voice Google.Passive instead of passive voice ('was walked').
IMO this is a pretty small bug, because we don't typically use the past progressive tense in technical documentation. But it's nevertheless incorrect to flag was/were + verb root + -ing suffix as passive voice.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks for the great product! I have a small bug to point out.
When run with the Google Style package, Vale incorrectly flags the past progressive tense (was/were + verb root + -ing suffix) as passive voice. Without having checked the source code, I assume this is because "passive voice" is coded as any past tense form of "to be" + any verb form.
Example: "Yesterday, I was walking to the park." Vale will return
suggestion In general, use active voice Google.Passive instead of passive voice ('was walked').
IMO this is a pretty small bug, because we don't typically use the past progressive tense in technical documentation. But it's nevertheless incorrect to flag was/were + verb root + -ing suffix as passive voice.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: