You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
While I really like what this rule does for the most part, one of its behaviors does annoy me. I tend to use &{process{ or .{process{ instead of ForEach-Object{ because it's a lot faster, and the call operator & can give it it's own scope if I want.
However, in analyzing the following code...
$foo|&{process{bar $_ }}
PSUseConsistentIndentation wants to change it to:
$foo|&{process{bar $_ }}
Is there any way I can modify this behavior? If I submitted a feature request to create a setting to suppress this behavior (not that I even know what the setting would be called) would it even be accepted?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
While I really like what this rule does for the most part, one of its behaviors does annoy me. I tend to use
&{process{or.{process{instead ofForEach-Object{because it's a lot faster, and the call operator&can give it it's own scope if I want.However, in analyzing the following code...
PSUseConsistentIndentation wants to change it to:
Is there any way I can modify this behavior? If I submitted a feature request to create a setting to suppress this behavior (not that I even know what the setting would be called) would it even be accepted?
BetaWas this translation helpful?Give feedback.
All reactions