Fix inconsistent type definition in example

[glasmasin]

The documentation for "@type" (http://usejsdoc.org/tags-type.html) implies that curly braces are required.

The referenced Google Closure Compiler type specifications state:

A type expression consists of curly braces ("{ }") containing some combination of the type operators described below.

However there is one example on the "@type" page in which the curly braces are not used (see third line):

/** @type {(string|Array.<string>)} */
var foo;
/** @type number */
var bar = 1;

This is inconsistent and has led to some confusion. I got here while researching this question on stack overflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19237372/what-are-jsdoc-type-curly-braces-for/

Could the docs please be updated to explain cases where {} are not required or could the example be fixed?

Thanks

[hegemonic]

The curly braces are "required" around the @type tag's value in the sense that it's always a good idea to use them. If you omit the curly braces in this case, JSDoc will be forgiving and try to parse your type expression anyhow. But the best practice is to use curly braces.

Updated the example to use curly braces.