Remove 'Defined as:'

[coke]

Looks like there was a style at some point to use

Defined as:

at the top of a routine before the method signature. I think this is unnecessary and we can just lead with the method declaration.

[coke]

Another ticket mentioned Declared as, which had only one use and was recently removed.

[2colours]

@coke could you show the ticket with "Declared as"?

I don't feel strongly about this one, either "for" or "against". Perhaps it could go but again, it would be good to get opinions from others who might be interested. @0rir what do you think, for example?

[0rir]

I didn't find the issue mentioning it, so my opinion is tentative.

As documentation, I think it can go as non-informative. And it is optional in xt/check-signatures.t 's grammar TypeDocumentation. That suggests it is just a waste of space.

[coke]

#3441

[2colours]

I'm trying to somewhat assure it doesn't hit anyone as a big surprise but otherwise I think the situation is in favor of the removal. It could even be removed from the tests and then we could quickly see where there are left-behinds.

[0rir]

Thanks, @coke, I guess I messed up with the quoting to find #3441.

There are roughly a thousand instances all, or nearly all, under /types. Reading through #3441, my opinion is affirmatively that those should go.

I won't volunteer because I have not dealt with any Not-Invented-By-Me grammars and feel my match object to action class tooling is weak. And, I feel like I should continue work on Issue #4117, even without feedback on my plan. (@Altai-man, is silence consent or lack of time.)

[Altai-man]

I won't volunteer because I have not dealt with any Not-Invented-By-Me grammars and feel my match object to action class tooling is weak. And, I feel like I should continue work on Issue #4117, even without feedback on my plan. (@Altai-man, is silence consent or lack of time.)

It is lack of time mostly, due to dayjob. If you can suggest a PR for improvements to categories noted - we should have it, it will be a help.