Show exact solutions to incorrect code in the documentation

[fregante]

The documentation shows good and bad examples in two large blocks, but this means that finding the right way to do things takes longer than necessary. I'd suggest this format:

❌ if (Object.is(foo, NaN)) {}
✅if (Object.is(foo, Number.NaN)) {}

❌ isNan(1)
✅ Number.isNaN(1)
⚠️ These are not equivalent, you might want this instead:
  ✅ if (typeof numberOrIdk !== number || Number.isNaN(numberOrIdk)) {

[sindresorhus]

We just borrowed ESLint's docs style, but I agree, it's been sometimes bothering me too.

[fregante]

Oh yeah I mentioned that in the other issue and forgot it here.

This is not Unicorn’s fault as ESLint’s docs are equally lacking

[sindresorhus]

I think the code should be valid though.

How about this?

Blocks

// ❌
if (Object.is(foo, NaN)) {}

// ✅
if (Object.is(foo, Number.NaN)) {}

Single-line

var foo = '';   // ❌
const foo = ''; // ✅

[fisker]

What do you think about live lint result like this? https://ota-meshi.github.io/eslint-plugin-regexp/rules/no-contradiction-with-assertion.html

[fregante]

I think that's unrelated. Live rules or not, even with autofix you'd want to see what's the suggested solution.