-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 167
Fix #1316: use table to define process #1618
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
Fix #1316: use table to define process #1618
Conversation
Remove more text from "Defining a Valid AWP" because the text is already in the Methods section.
PTAL at this general approach. Might be best to look at the preview (not diff), section 1.33.4.3. This introduces two new bikeshed warnings but I think it makes it much easier to read and understand because it matches how other methods are described. Can't define this method in IDL, so these warnings will just have to live. The alternative is to do this by hand using html. Prefer not to do that so that we remain consistent with what bikeshed does. The section on defining a valid processor is pretty short now. Not exactly sure what to do here. |
Actually this looks good! I was wondering about how Bikeshed will handle this IDL mismatch, but I can live with a warning. LGTM. |
State what the types are for the `inputs` and `outputs` parameters to `process()`. Remove the section about defining a valid processor because this no longer adds anything more that isn't already covered by the existing examples..
Regenerate HTML 2018-05-17 after PR #1618
Preview | Diff