Skip to content

Clarifications to 'Resolved Values' section #1081

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

catamorphism
Copy link
Collaborator

I was re-reading the MessageValue example and noticed that it's easy to skip over what the last three methods are for, so I added a reference to the earlier text.

I also thought that the getValue() method could have another name, since it's confusing to think about the "value" that it returns, vs. the enclosing MessageValue. The name I thought of was getResult(), but I'm open to other suggestions. I also thought it needed a little more explanation.

@catamorphism catamorphism added the editorial Issue is non-normative label Jun 13, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@eemeli eemeli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't mind changing the accessor name, but see inline comments for a few things that need fixing.

Comment on lines +180 to +181
> - In some cases (such as in a number formatting function), `getResult()` would
> return the _operand_ of the function that returned the `MessageValue`. In other
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is incorrect; for an expression like {42 :number} the function is expected to return the numerical value 42 rather than the literal string '42', which is the operand here.

Also, please do use semantic line breaks in spec text.

Comment on lines +184 to +185
> - The `directionality()`, `isolate()`, and `isLiteralOptionValue()` methods
> fulfill the requirements and recommendations mentioned earlier in this section.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"earlier" is incorrect, as at least isolation is only mentioned in bidi handling.

Suggested change
> - The `directionality()`, `isolate()`, and `isLiteralOptionValue()` methods
> fulfill the requirements and recommendations mentioned earlier in this section.
> - The `directionality()`, `isolate()`, and `isLiteralOptionValue()` methods
> fulfill requirements and recommendations mentioned elsewhere in this specification.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
editorial Issue is non-normative
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants