Skip to content

Conversation

alejandronanez
Copy link
Member

Updating return to retorna

@tesseralis
Copy link
Member

I think in this case the comment means "this was what the code previously was, but we're changing it" -- it's supposed to represent code so should just stay return.

@alejandronanez
Copy link
Member Author

Hey @tesseralis, yep, I get the point, but we're translating other return occurrences as well. I made the change to keep things consistent! 😄

@carburo
Copy link
Member

carburo commented Feb 18, 2019

Yep, you're right

@alejandronanez alejandronanez merged commit b55f0c0 into master Feb 18, 2019
@alejandronanez alejandronanez deleted the jsx-in-depth branch February 18, 2019 00:10
@carburo
Copy link
Member

carburo commented Feb 18, 2019

I see @tesseralis point. Maybe we should change it the other way around?

@alejandronanez
Copy link
Member Author

Well, we already have translated other return and returns into retorna - I think we should stick to retorna to be consistent.

@carburo
Copy link
Member

carburo commented Feb 18, 2019

Yes, it's fine. Maybe I just didn't make myself clear. Usually, we translate "return" and "returns" but in this case, although the text is in comments it's actually code.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants