polish: drop the duplicated ± replacement, which was dead - #710
Merged
Conversation
`s = s.replace(/±/gu, " plus minus ")` appeared TWICE, six lines apart, each under its own comment block. The second could never fire: the first is a global replace, so no ± survives it. Pre-existing — it predates the comment sweep. It was found while converging the ± comment blocks (#709), which is what put the two copies side by side; each block described the rule as if it were the only one. Behaviour unchanged, checked rather than assumed: ±5 stopni → plˈus mˈinus pjˈɛɲt͡ɕ stˈɔpɲi temperatura ±0,5 → … plˈus mˈinus zˈɛrɔ pʂɛt͡ɕˈinɛk pjˈɛɲt͡ɕ +30 i -5 → plˈus tʂɨd͡ʑˈɛɕt͡ɕi ˈi mˈinus pjˈɛɲt͡ɕ Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_012Lc3WnUgogC7okV7n53vjr
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow-up to #709, which found this but left it so that PR could keep its byte-identity guarantee.
polish/normalize.tsrantwice, six lines apart, each under its own comment block describing the rule as if it were the only one. The second could never fire — the first is a global replace, so no
±survives it.Pre-existing; it predates the comment sweep. It surfaced only because converging the
±blocks put the two copies side by side.Verification
Typecheck clean, 3118 tests pass, and the behaviour checked rather than assumed: