Editorial: the Object constructor's parameter is expected to be present #3682
Conversation
| <li>has a *"length"* property whose value is *1*<sub>𝔽</sub>.</li> | ||
| <li>has the following additional properties:</li> | ||
| </ul> | ||
| <p>The Object constructor has a [[Prototype]] internal slot whose value is %Function.prototype%. It also has the following properties:</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are multiple sections which still uses the "ul" listing even with 2 items
- https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-properties-of-the-boolean-constructor
- https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-properties-of-the-symbol-constructor
- https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-properties-of-the-symbol-constructor
- and some more
and also I don't see any existing paragraph that uses the new style.
So I think it's better keeping the "ul" listing style, with the length bullet removed, for the consistency.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see the benefit of this kind of consistency. I think it's awkward to use a bulleted list to describe just 2 aspects of something, especially when they are as terse as this. I'd prefer to change the existing cases to use phrasing like what I've introduced here, and I also don't think that work would block landing this in its current form because, again, that kind of consistency isn't necessary. I'll open an issue.
edit: #3684
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see the benefit of this kind of consistency.
One benefit is easier automated processing + checking.
E.g., the "WebIDL in ES" effort wants "to produce a representation of ECMAScript built-ins that could be automatically generated from the ECMAScript specification HTML file", and these <ul> elements appear to be relevant to that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, I think it can help human readers. If you want certain kinds of info about an intrinsic object, you can look for a <p>+<ul> combo of a certain 'shape'.
4 participants
Fixes #3627 according to the conclusion from last week's editor call.