Warnings on uninitialized previous values?
lgwagner opened this issue · comments
I find myself using uninitialized previous values quite a bit and I find the warning annoying. Do we still need that validation?
I concur that the warning is annoying especially when I made the decision
that it is not necessary to define the previous value. It was always more
of a suggestion to the user to consider the need for an initialized
previous value rather than a true warning.
We could do one of three things:
1. Disable the warning altogether stating that documentation and
experience should allow the user to determine if the initialized previous
is necessary.
2. Enable a preference option to disable that warning if the user would
like.
3. Provide an escape in the "previous" grammar construct / new command
that explicitly shows that user intentionally does not want an initialized
previous value.
I think option 1, is most appropriate but like some aspects of option 2 and
option 3 especially for users that are not as familiar with the tool.
Bottom line, let's go with option 1 and take a look at the wiki to ensure
it is covered well enough to support that decision.
…On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Lucas Wagner ***@***.***> wrote:
Assigned #90 <#90> to @AFifarek
<https://github.com/afifarek>.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#90 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGeTjMB99iV5krXo9V8DQpBKuGv-7EIfks5sbtgQgaJpZM4PCuYm>
.
I'm okay with any of the three options. I lean toward 2 and thought I saw that implemented, but I don't see it in 2.1.0 beta. Lucas, is it in your dev version?