Skip to content
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

Event Loop Guide grammar fixes #7479

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed

Event Loop Guide grammar fixes #7479

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

ryanmurakami
Copy link
Contributor

Checklist
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)
Description of change

Some grammar fixes. Updating formatting consistency like uppercasing 'Event Loop' and codifying headers.

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. label Jun 29, 2016
@cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor

cjihrig commented Jun 29, 2016

Is event loop a proper noun? I don't think it needs to be capitalized.

@mscdex
Copy link
Contributor

mscdex commented Jun 29, 2016

I have to agree, 'event loop' should probably stay all lowercase.

I'm all for the removal of unnecessary whitespace at the end of lines though.

any asynchronous I/O or timer and it shuts down cleanly if there are not
any.

## Phases in Detail

### timers
### `timers`:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This probably doesn't need backticks.

@ryanmurakami
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cjihrig @mscdex Thanks for the comments! I was mistaking header capitalization for proper noun-ization with "event loop". Let me fix that.

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Jun 29, 2016

@nodejs/documentation


Looking back at our diagram, any time you call `process.nextTick()` in a
given phase, all callbacks passed to `process.nextTick()` will be
resolved before the event loop continues. This can create some bad
situations because **it allows you to "starve" your I/O by making
recursive `process.nextTick()` calls.** which prevents the event loop
recursive `process.nextTick()` calls,** which prevents the event loop
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Small nit, but the comma probably doesn't need to be inside the **.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

K

@ryanmurakami
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cjihrig I swapped back-ticking phases for bolding them, and I think it works a lot better. Take a look and let me know what you think.

@stevemao
Copy link
Contributor

stevemao commented Jul 2, 2016

I agree backticks should be used strictly for code only.

@cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor

cjihrig commented Jul 5, 2016

There are conflicts now.

# Conflicts:
#	doc/topics/the-event-loop-timers-and-nexttick.md
@ryanmurakami
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cjihrig Got it! Resolved.


### `close callbacks`:
### **close callbacks**
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a need to bold headers?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@cjihrig Only to follow the pattern of bolding event loop phases. Visually, I think it looked better bolded than not, but that is just me personally.

@cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor

cjihrig commented Jul 6, 2016

LGTM with a comment.

@ryanmurakami
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cjihrig Ah, nevermind. Looks like the styling doesn't actually get any bolder than bold. Maybe the preview in Atom looked different? Who knows. I went ahead and removed the bolding on headers because it seems to be redundant.

@cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor

cjihrig commented Jul 7, 2016

One more ping of @nodejs/documentation. Otherwise, I think this can land.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Jul 7, 2016

LGTM. I can see a number of other things I'd like to fix but those can be done separately.

@cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor

cjihrig commented Jul 12, 2016

Thanks! Landed in 55250b8.

@cjihrig cjihrig closed this Jul 12, 2016
cjihrig pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2016
PR-URL: #7479
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
evanlucas pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 15, 2016
PR-URL: #7479
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 30, 2016
PR-URL: #7479
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 28, 2016
PR-URL: #7479
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2016
PR-URL: #7479
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 26, 2016
PR-URL: #7479
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Oct 26, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants