doc: fence code blocks #4726
Comments
|
It's docs, churn doesn't exist like that imo |
|
I agree. Also it's clearer while editing the docs for the eye, imo, and for markdown syntax highlighters. I'd offer some time to do it. Are there any blockers? |
|
I'd say go for it. One thing that needs to be checked beforehand is that the HTML output of |
|
Alright. Will likely send in feedback today. |
|
@silverwind I added three commits. The code block change is really big of course. I wanted to take some time on a bigger screen to review it tomorrow. I am pretty sure everything is alright though. Do have a look at the commit message for known issues. I also added one to rename |
|
@silverwind if you like, do have a look at Rods remarks on the PR. If you want to take this further, I am happy to change stuff accordingly. |
This changes the code blocks from 4-space indentation to ``` fences for better syntax highlighting and future linting support. Minor On-the-fly changes for typos and highlight breaking markdown have been made. JSON-Style objects have been changed so their closing bracket is on the same line as the opening one. Known issues: * Not every JSON / object notation has been improved. Should make another run for this. * Some example functions break hightlighting due to various combinations of brackets. However changing them means leaving the code style. Fixes: #4726 PR-URL: #4733 Reviewed-By: Roman Reiss <me@silverwind.io>
This changes the code blocks from 4-space indentation to ``` fences for better syntax highlighting and future linting support. Minor On-the-fly changes for typos and highlight breaking markdown have been made. JSON-Style objects have been changed so their closing bracket is on the same line as the opening one. Known issues: * Not every JSON / object notation has been improved. Should make another run for this. * Some example functions break hightlighting due to various combinations of brackets. However changing them means leaving the code style. Fixes: #4726 PR-URL: #4733 Reviewed-By: Roman Reiss <me@silverwind.io>
This changes the code blocks from 4-space indentation to ``` fences for better syntax highlighting and future linting support. Minor On-the-fly changes for typos and highlight breaking markdown have been made. JSON-Style objects have been changed so their closing bracket is on the same line as the opening one. Known issues: * Not every JSON / object notation has been improved. Should make another run for this. * Some example functions break hightlighting due to various combinations of brackets. However changing them means leaving the code style. Fixes: #4726 PR-URL: #4733 Reviewed-By: Roman Reiss <me@silverwind.io>
This changes the code blocks from 4-space indentation to ``` fences for better syntax highlighting and future linting support. Minor On-the-fly changes for typos and highlight breaking markdown have been made. JSON-Style objects have been changed so their closing bracket is on the same line as the opening one. Known issues: * Not every JSON / object notation has been improved. Should make another run for this. * Some example functions break hightlighting due to various combinations of brackets. However changing them means leaving the code style. Fixes: #4726 PR-URL: #4733 Reviewed-By: Roman Reiss <me@silverwind.io>
This changes the code blocks from 4-space indentation to ``` fences for better syntax highlighting and future linting support. Minor On-the-fly changes for typos and highlight breaking markdown have been made. JSON-Style objects have been changed so their closing bracket is on the same line as the opening one. Known issues: * Not every JSON / object notation has been improved. Should make another run for this. * Some example functions break hightlighting due to various combinations of brackets. However changing them means leaving the code style. Fixes: nodejs#4726 PR-URL: nodejs#4733 Reviewed-By: Roman Reiss <me@silverwind.io>
Currently, we use 4-space indent to mark code blocks in the docs. It'd be better if we could replace them with backtick fences like
js` orc++`. This has two benefits:Because this would be another "churn" commit, I'd like to ask for opinions first.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: