Overview

Porting context from #6022 > #6022 (comment):

A number of the no- rules make sense as things that won't be turned on and have no inverse, so a blanket rule against no- prefixes is a bad idea.
I agree though that it makes sense for us to advise against that naming if it's feasible that we will add inverse functionality to a rule.

@typescript-eslint/no-array-constructor is mentioned as a potential rule to rename:

• has no inverse
• maybe should be renamed though because it sounds like you shouldn't use any array constructors, when it's only enforcing correct usage.

Personally, I'm on the fence of whether a different name would be better, and don't mind either way. Which makes me lean slightly towards keeping it the same, just to reduce changes.

@bradzacher, did you have a different name in mind?