Docs: Fix inconsistent terminology between reject and unescape functions #1
+1
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
In math a function g is considered the inverse of function f if x == g(f(x)) for all x's Strictly speaking inverse is being used accurately here. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes lodash#5940
This PR addresses the inconsistent terminology in the documentation:
rejectwas described as "The opposite of_.filter"unescapewas described as "The inverse of_.escape"I've standardized the terminology to use "opposite" consistently across both functions to improve documentation clarity.
The issue also mentioned cross-referencing, but both functions already correctly reference each other with
@seetags.