-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 535
Contract Definition #55
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
Contract Definition #55
Conversation
- Publisher | ||
- Subscriber | ||
- Subscription | ||
NOTE: The specifications below use binding words in CAPLOCKS from https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
s/CAPLOCKS/VERSALS/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I had never heard of the word versal until here so went and looked it up. I don't think versal works, as it says it is for starting a verse, paragraph, etc whereas these are anywhere in the text.
of or relating to a style of ornate capital letter used to start a verse, paragraph, etc., in a manuscript, typically built up by inking between pen strokes and with long, rather flat serifs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, the joy of natural languages and typography ;-) I assumed that the word was special enough to have the same meaning in English and German; let’s go with CAPITAL LETTERS then.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you want me to force update this PR with that change? append a commit? or submit yet another PR?
LGTM (apart from the “VERSALS” nitpick) Thanks for implementing the discussed changes! |
Can we merge this based on agreement at #46 (comment) or should we wait for a LGTM from everyone here? |
Hmm, the proper procedure in the proposed CONTRIBUTING rules would be to require LGTMs on this PR, but I think we might have discussed this particular change enough to just merge it now ;-) I’d say go ahead. |
Merging ... been reviewed, discussed and approved by many people over many weeks :-) |
Thanks everyone who was involved in this one! |
Results of discussions in #40, #19, #37, #41 and #46