Skip to content

Conversation

@zpao
Copy link
Member

@zpao zpao commented Dec 8, 2014

We'll get to lint parity soon and then not need to do this.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe rename this to not key since it's actually the value?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wait jk it's not.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should be a numerical for loop?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

... yep. I should have at least caught that in review, but definitely here. oops.

@sebmarkbage
Copy link
Collaborator

@spicyj's comment

We'll get to lint parity soon and then not need to do this.
zpao added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 8, 2014
@zpao zpao merged commit ba95ce7 into facebook:master Dec 8, 2014
@zpao zpao deleted the lint-internal branch April 16, 2015 16:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants