From e23a62d5675354a17617dec31ebef27d8e70e527 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: George Hartzell Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 09:03:22 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Typo: missing ';' ruins emdash There's an `&mdash` that needs to be an `&emdash;`. --- README.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 74c66b3..959b915 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ func fileExtension(filepath string) string { } ``` -This kind of logical progression in our function names—from a high level of abstraction to a lower, more specific one&mdashmakes the code easier to follow and and read. Consider the alternative: If our highest level of abstraction is too specific, then we'll end up with a name that attempts to cover all bases, like `DetermineFileExtensionAndParseConfigurationFile`. This is horrendously difficult to read; we are trying to be too specific too soon and end up confusing the reader, despite trying to be clear! +This kind of logical progression in our function names—from a high level of abstraction to a lower, more specific one—makes the code easier to follow and and read. Consider the alternative: If our highest level of abstraction is too specific, then we'll end up with a name that attempts to cover all bases, like `DetermineFileExtensionAndParseConfigurationFile`. This is horrendously difficult to read; we are trying to be too specific too soon and end up confusing the reader, despite trying to be clear! #### Variable Naming Rather interestingly, the opposite is true for variables. Unlike functions, our variables should be named from more to less specific the deeper we go into nested scopes.