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

Document support for special terms at run-time, one-sided formula #155

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Oct 2, 2019

Conversation

kleinschmidt
Copy link
Member

@kleinschmidt kleinschmidt commented Sep 28, 2019

This adds some notes in the documentation for package developers about supporting run-time use of special terms, expanding on a short comment from slack with @Nosferican. It also updates the poly/PolyTerm example to follow the revised guidelines.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Sep 28, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #155 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #155   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.66%   83.66%           
=======================================
  Files           9        9           
  Lines         496      496           
=======================================
  Hits          415      415           
  Misses         81       81
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/terms.jl 84.61% <ø> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 05dbb50...32c43e7. Read the comment docs.

docs/src/internals.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/src/internals.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/src/internals.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/src/internals.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
```

This is workable if a little verbose, so the third (optional) step is to provide
additional "runtime" methods for the function that's used in the `@formula`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
additional "runtime" methods for the function that's used in the `@formula`
additional "runtime" methods for the function that are used in the `@formula`

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"function" is the head of this relative clause so single number is appropriate no? That is, it's the function that's used, not the methods...although now I see that this is potentially structurally ambiguous :)

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.

5 participants