Remove example where type=null

[lindhe]

If type is always equal to null, it feels like an irrelevant example to bring up.

[lindhe]

Alternatively, we can change it to something more helpful. But if type=null in each example, I'm not sure what that contributes.

[lbajolet-hashicorp]

Hi @lindhe,

Thanks for the PR! Unfortunately I do not think we can accept it as-is, as the type in this case is indeed null, as in the null builder, not as "undefined".
I can completely understand that this is misleading though, and this deserves to be updated with more concrete examples than null to avoid that misunderstanding.

Do you want to take a jab at this change? I can take this on otherwise, please let me know how you'd prefer to proceed here.

Thanks!

[lindhe]

[…] the type in this case is indeed null, as in the null builder, not as "undefined". I can completely understand that this is misleading though, and this deserves to be updated with more concrete examples than null to avoid that misunderstanding.

Ah, thanks for clarifying! That makes sense, I guess, just that it is pretty awkward to print it out on each line despite it never changing. Maybe just make a print like builder type {builder.type} on a separate line? Or perhaps there is some other builder we could use as another example…

Do you want to take a jab at this change? I can take this on otherwise, please let me know how you'd prefer to proceed here.

Thanks for asking. I'm usually happy to contribute, but I feel like I don't quite understand the purpose of this example so it's hard for me to make an improved example. No hard feelings if you ditch this PR and make a better example. 🙂