I agree the original comment was okay as long as you read everything in context.

The main "issue" with the original comment was the unfortunate use of `=>` (which is used in other docs to [describe the return value of the line](https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/actionpack/lib/action_controller/metal/strong_parameters.rb#L55-L57)). It also doesn't help that the sentence begins with "returning". These two combined makes it looks like this line is describing the return value of `Post.none` on casual scan.

So, removing the leading `=>` while preserving the original comment would go a long way. I'm indifferent about the other proposals, to me those doesn't seem to make a big difference addressing the issue I brought up, but I'm not opposed to them either.