-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 706
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
[2.19] Clarify
library
usage for no-name declarations update (#4390)
fixes #4314 staged: https://lib-dir-docs.web.app Changes: - Added [code sample](https://lib-dir-docs.web.app/guides/language/effective-dart/documentation#consider-writing-a-library-level-doc-comment) to existing library-level doc comment section - Added [Don't use library directives unless attaching doc comments or annotations](https://lib-dir-docs.web.app/guides/language/effective-dart/usage#dont-use-library-directives-unless-attaching-doc-comments-or-annotations) section - Added [Don't explicitly name libraries](https://lib-dir-docs.web.app/guides/language/effective-dart/usage#dont-explicitly-name-libraries) section - Reduced [`part of`](https://lib-dir-docs.web.app/guides/language/effective-dart/usage#do-use-strings-in-part-of-directives) section - Removed / modified unnecessary notes about the library directive on the [Creating packages](https://lib-dir-docs.web.app/guides/libraries/create-library-packages) page I thought about completely removing the `part of` section in Effective Dart: Usage, in favor of the more general new section "Don't explicitly name libraries", because it's not even recommended to use `part of` at all anymore. The new section could add a code example similar to the one for `part of` that more generally illustrates "Use URI strings to refer to libraries", and the linter rule could point to that section instead. Thoughts? @kevmoo @pq etc. Co-authored-by: Parker Lougheed <parlough@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Kevin Moore <kevmoo@users.noreply.github.com>
- Loading branch information
1 parent
5008cf8
commit 458bcdb
Showing
7 changed files
with
100 additions
and
52 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I bet there's a good reason but I'm curious about these new ignores. What are the diagnostics they're suppressing? (It'd be nice to fix them better.)