Open MarcusSky opened 3 years ago
This is my first time looking at the implementation, and I also think it would be better named as exceptional-status
.
To avoid breaking the library for existing users, I think it's preferrable to leave it as-is for the 3.x
branch. We can consider changing this behaviour perhaps for 4.x
which is still in early stages.
Sounds fair! should I open a pull request?
Hey guys, I was looking through the code, and I noticed that here we're naming the keyword
unexceptional-status
- shouldn't it be namedexceptional-status
sinceunexceptional-status-for-request?
returnedfalse
?