Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork2.8k
Closed
Description
Overview
Porting context from#6022 >#6022 (comment):
A number of the
no-
rules make sense as things that won't be turned on and have no inverse, so a blanket rule againstno-
prefixes is a bad idea.
I agree though that it makes sense for us to advise against that naming if it's feasible that we will add inverse functionality to a rule.
@typescript-eslint/no-array-constructor
is mentioned as a potential rule to rename:
- has no inverse
- maybe should be renamed though because it sounds like you shouldn't use any array constructors, when it's only enforcing correct usage.
Personally, I'm on the fence of whether a different name would be better, and don't mind either way. Which makes me lean slightly towards keeping it the same, just to reduce changes.
@bradzacher, did you have a different name in mind?