Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Updated Inclusive to accept description as well #364

Merged

Conversation

svisser
Copy link
Collaborator

@svisser svisser commented Oct 4, 2018

This makes the implementation consistent with Exclusive which is also a subclass of Optional and which also accepts description.

I think this might've been missed in the past but it seems logical to accept description for both.

I noticed this after looking at the documentation mentioned in #363.

This makes the implementation consistent with Exclusive which is also a subclass of Optional and which also accepts description
@svisser svisser self-assigned this Oct 4, 2018
@svisser svisser requested a review from alecthomas October 4, 2018 11:24
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 95.349% when pulling 360d50a on svisser:feature/inclusive_description into e72fd3b on alecthomas:master.

@alecthomas alecthomas merged commit 2e68114 into alecthomas:master Oct 5, 2018
@alecthomas
Copy link
Owner

Good thinking!

@svisser svisser deleted the feature/inclusive_description branch October 5, 2018 13:44
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants