-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 196
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
Amoral language #1591
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Amoral language #1591
Conversation
Regarding running tests - https://github.com/ndmitchell/hlint#how-to-run-tests |
@googleson78 Aha nice! I just did that and it passed:
But I'd like to do a bit more refactoring because the current code is definitely strange. |
@ndmitchell what do you think? |
I think no-loaded language is always better. I think "You can remove it" might be the clearest of all? At this point we believe it is definitely safe to remove, so I don't think we need to equivocate. But we also don't need to preach. Does |
That sentence is so funny to me :P
I can make that change if you want, just let me know. |
While anything in HLint can have bugs, I think we broadly have to assume it's right in the messaging, or it just gets way too confusing. |
hints.md
Outdated
@@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ Found: | |||
<br> | |||
Suggestion: | |||
<code> | |||
Perhaps you should remove it. | |||
You may be able to remove it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Simplifying to You can remove it
was my immediate thought too, FWIW
Reflecting on this further, I wonder if "Perhaps remove it" is the right balance? The perhaps turns it more into a dialog with the user - a suggestion. It doesn't suggest doubt in the validity of the hint, but it leaves all agency with the user? Sorry for ratholing on the smallest things here @NorfairKing - genuinely curious what people think? I think this diff is definitely an improvement to the status quo, just wondering if more is even better? |
Fix #1584
I started by refactoring the relevant code, but in doing so I found some very strange semantics, as you'll see below.
I assume this is a historical artifact of previous refactors but I'd appreciate a double-check first.
I couldn't figure out how to run the tests either,
stack test
doesn't seem to run any tests.