Edited Snippet to fix issue #1353

[kilasuit]

PR Summary

This PR is to edit the basic Function Snippet to be more Powershell specific than C# in nature and fixes #1353

PR Checklist

Note: Tick the boxes below that apply to this pull request by putting an x between the square brackets.
Please mark anything not applicable to this PR NA.

• PR has a meaningful title
• Summarized changes
• This PR is ready to merge and is not work in progress
  • If the PR is work in progress, please add the prefix WIP: to the beginning of the title and remove the prefix when the PR is ready

[TylerLeonhardt]

I think this is a reasonable change. It's a lot easier to extend this to an advanced function/cmdlet after you start with this change.

I'd like to hear from @rkeithhill and @rjmholt on what they think.

[rkeithhill]

Could we add this as another function* snippet? I tend to write a lot of tiny little functions where inline param decl is just fine and rarely changes.

We already have two function snippets: function and function-advanced. What should we call this third option? Maybe "function-param"?

[kilasuit]

@rkeithhill that is exactly why I've put forward the change - whilst it is second nature for a c# developer to declare them in this manner, even though it is accepted in PowerShell language, it is untidy when you look at it from a purely PowerShell standpoint and to newcomers that aren't devs but coming from SysAdmin side.

I'd be suggestive of adding the C# type snippet back in with this PR but calling it Function-NoParam because we should be focusing people to use the more PowerShell language than C# language especially as this is a PowerShell extension.

If that sounds good I'll add a further commit to address this to this PR and it can be added all together.

Edit - pushed commit to add back in the old function snippet but renamed to function-noparam

[rkeithhill]

How about we describe this as just function definition snippet with inline parameters?

[kilasuit]

Could do but I think this is more informative, and explains in not too much info where a user may see this syntax elsewhere

[rkeithhill]

Well, my main objection is that the last bit about "and is more typically seen in C#" reads a bit too "opinionated" IMO. :-) Maybe just remove that bit?

[rjmholt]

I agree that the default function snippet should use the param block by default and we should keep the inline function snippet as well.

Maybe Function-Inline is more descriptive than function-NoParam?

Our name-casing seems to be a bit strange. I get the impression that function is so because of the keyword, but I'm thinking that since Function-Advanced has both uppercase, so should the renamed snipped if it has a suffix.

[kilasuit]

@rkeithhill @rjmholt @tylerl0706 have made amendments as requested - just waiting on the build to finish

[rkeithhill]

LGTM

[SeeminglyScience]

LGTM

[rjmholt]

Thanks for your contribution @kilasuit!