Add hwb, lab, and lch to functions matching isColor #111
Conversation
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
8 tasks
shellscape
approved these changes
Apr 17, 2020
|
Thanks! I'll get this merged and released tonight |
|
Sweet! I’ll follow along. 👍 Thanks a ton! |
|
Sorry for not getting this published last night. Came down with something and just woke up a bit ago. Looks like I just needed sleep. I have a few tweaks I want to make and then I'll get a new version out. |
I'm open to that. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR contains:
Breaking Changes?
This PR changes the way the
isColorproperty of aFuncis determined so that it may includehwb(),lch(), andlab()notations.Note: This is not causing me any issues in my current work. It’s just something I noticed while inspecting the code.
Note: I would expect the
isColorandisVarhelper properties to be getters, so that in the event one reassigns a function name, they remain accurate. I am open to adding that in a separate PR if you feel it will add value.