Skip to content
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

Rationalize styling #673

Closed
jennybc opened this issue Mar 28, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

Rationalize styling #673

jennybc opened this issue Mar 28, 2019 · 2 comments
Labels
tooling 🔨 Internal usethis tooling

Comments

@jennybc
Copy link
Member

jennybc commented Mar 28, 2019

Various styling issues have accumulated:

Are we consistent in our use of ui_THIS() vs ui_THAT()? For example, I think URLs should probably be treated with ui_field() not ui_value(). Maybe we should create ui_url() (even if it's aliased to ui_field().

The way we handle multi-line messages is all over the place. Mostly, I think, because it's not clear what you're actually supposed to do. Write that down in principles.md then fix obvious violations.

@jennybc jennybc added this to the v1.5.0 milestone Mar 28, 2019
@jennybc jennybc added the tooling 🔨 Internal usethis tooling label Mar 31, 2019
@jennybc jennybc modified the milestones: v1.5.0, Backlog Mar 31, 2019
@jennybc jennybc removed this from the Backlog milestone Apr 10, 2019
@krlmlr
Copy link
Member

krlmlr commented May 29, 2019

I agree each kind of output should have its own ui_...() function, even if it's only a redirect. Specialized ui_...() functions could check the input format and warn (once) if there's a mismatch.

@jennybc
Copy link
Member Author

jennybc commented Jul 10, 2020

Roll this into #956. Converting to cli would be an obvious time to rationalize usage and styling of ui_*() functions.

@jennybc jennybc closed this as completed Jul 10, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
tooling 🔨 Internal usethis tooling
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants