Editorial: Remove unnecessary statement following heading for find.

[DanielRosenwasser]

I found this while reading over the proposed spec text for findLast. It seems like no other function/method contains text like this.

[bakkot]

There's a few categories of these, it looks like:

• .concat/.every/.filter/.findIndex/.flat/.flatMap/.forEach/.indexOf/.lastIndexOf/.map/.push/.reduce/.reduceRight/.some/.unshift have "When the X method is called with [arguments], [optional description]. The following steps are taken:"
  • as a variant, .includes does not include the "with [arguments]" part, despite taking an argument
• .slice and .splice have a bare "The following steps are taken:"
• .copyWithin/.fill have "The X method takes up to X arguments A, B, and C." [yes, there is no punctuation after "arguments"]
• .find has both "The find method is called with one or two arguments, predicate and thisArg." and "When the find method is called, the following steps are taken:"
• .join has "The join method takes one argument, separator, and performs the following steps:"

(I skipped a few.) And that's just the Array prototype methods; I imagine there's other variants lurking out there. At a quick skim, most do seem to use either the "When the X is called" form or a bare "The following steps are taken:".

Clearly there's more work to do. Ideally someday we'd have something along the lines of #1914 / #1994 / #2253, at least where it makes sense to do so.

---

Concretely, I think for this PR it would be good to additionally reword the sentence following the NOTE to add "with one or two arguments", as in "When the find method is called with one or two arguments, the following steps are taken:", which will make it match most of the rest of the Array prototype methods.

[DanielRosenwasser]

I think we're good to go now.

[michaelficarra]

I don't know why we're bothering with this. We're going to just remove all this nonsense from the Array.prototype section anyway. I'll send a PR.

edit: #2346

[bakkot]

Thanks for kicking this off, @DanielRosenwasser. I believe it's now addressed a little more comprehensively by #2346, so closing this, but feel free to reopen if you think there's more to do here.