3 ms·

I only see second-person "you" and not first-person "I" in the linked documentation. Am I missing what you intended to point out? In any case, this might actua

by Bjartr 2y ago

I only see second-person "you" and not first-person "I" in the linked documentation. Am I missing what you intended to point out? In any case, this might actually be a good use for an LLM to post-process it into whatever style you want. I bet there's even a browser extension that could do it on-demand and in-place.

Timon3 2y ago
Really? For example under "Main concepts" on the "Schemas" site[0], I see stuff like this: - I support the creation of schemas for any primitive data type. - Among complex values I support objects, records, arrays, tuples as well as various other classes. - For objects I provide various methods like pick, omit, partial and required. - Beyond primitive and complex values, I also provide schema functions for more special cases. Same for "Mental model", "Pipeline", "Parse data", "Infer types", "Methods" and "Issues" - I'll assume the other sections also follow this style. That's all not showing up for you? While the LLM suggestion is nice, it's not something I'm comfortable with unless hallucinations are incredibly rare. Why would I use a library whose documentation I have to pass through an unreliable preprocessor to follow a normal style? [0]: https://valibot.dev/guides/schemas/ https://valibot.dev/guides/schemas/
- prophesi 2y ago
  If they're part of Hacktoberfest, editing those pages to drop the first person perspective sounds like a pretty useful first contribution.
  - Timon3 2y ago
    It seems I'm not the first person to make this observation: https://github.com/fabian-hiller/valibot/issues/687 https://github.com/fabian-hiller/valibot/issues/687 I honestly don't want my validation library to "tell a story" at the expense of documentation clarity. It's absolutely fine that this project uses it, I don't want to impose my view on them - I guess it's just not the validation library for me.

by Bjartr 2y ago

Timon3 2y ago

Really? For example under "Main concepts" on the "Schemas" site[0], I see stuff like this: - I support the creation of schemas for any primitive data type. - Among complex values I support objects, records, arrays, tuples as well as various other classes. - For objects I provide various methods like pick, omit, partial and required. - Beyond primitive and complex values, I also provide schema functions for more special cases. Same for "Mental model", "Pipeline", "Parse data", "Infer types", "Methods" and "Issues" - I'll assume the other sections also follow this style. That's all not showing up for you? While the LLM suggestion is nice, it's not something I'm comfortable with unless hallucinations are incredibly rare. Why would I use a library whose documentation I have to pass through an unreliable preprocessor to follow a normal style? [0]: https://valibot.dev/guides/schemas/ https://valibot.dev/guides/schemas/

prophesi 2y ago
If they're part of Hacktoberfest, editing those pages to drop the first person perspective sounds like a pretty useful first contribution.
- Timon3 2y ago
  It seems I'm not the first person to make this observation: https://github.com/fabian-hiller/valibot/issues/687 https://github.com/fabian-hiller/valibot/issues/687 I honestly don't want my validation library to "tell a story" at the expense of documentation clarity. It's absolutely fine that this project uses it, I don't want to impose my view on them - I guess it's just not the validation library for me.