Potential rule duplication

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

Do you think having a rule no_behaviour_info (with a u) would make sense? It would simply be an alias for no_behavior_info. [I don't want to get into an argument over the English language, since I don't have a preference...]

I remember being surprised, a few years back, when I discovered that both spellings worked the same for erlang. I think, at a given moment in time, about 10 years ago, dialyzer would complain about missing stuff if the spelling was behavior.

[elbrujohalcon]

I don't think we need a new rule. If no_behavior_info doesn't warn you about behaviour_info/1, it should.

[jfacorro]

I think that should be the case as well, that is, if it doesn't do it at the moment it should. 😄

[jfacorro]

I just checked and the style rule does check for both 🥳 , see here.

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

I just checked and the style rule does check for both 🥳 , see here.

I wasn't talking about the check itself, but the rule name. :) It was simply a new alias...

[jfacorro]

Aaah, I misunderstood then. I think it's probably better to have a single one to avoid confusion. I just updated the documentation so it mentions both spellings.

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

Aaah, I misunderstood then. I think it's probably better to have a single one to avoid confusion. I just updated the documentation so it mentions both spellings.

Got it. Thanks.