Editorial: Consistify capitalization re iterator wording #3469
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
It looks like PR tc39#3459 missed these changes to capitalization and use of "<em>".
michaelficarra
approved these changes
Nov 7, 2024
This is intentional.
I would hope this goes without saying, but I'd be fine including such a sentence. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It looks like PR #3459 missed these changes to capitalization and use of
<em>.Things I noticed but didn't change:
"Iterator instance objects": Not sure about that "I".
"an [Oo]bject that conforms to the IteratorResult interface": Change to "an IteratorResult object" (of which there are already many occurrences)?
The latter reminds me that the spec should perhaps have a sentence saying that an object that conforms to interface Foo can be called "a Foo object".