3 ms·
I am guessing this is exactly why, otherwise why would any sane group of people come up with this idea? And if that's the case... why why WHY even try to do it
by corytheboyd 6y ago
I am guessing this is exactly why, otherwise why would any sane group of people come up with this idea?
And if that's the case... why why WHY even try to do it this way?! Feels like a VERY forced pushing of a square peg into a non-existent hole.
- tinco 6y agoI don't think that's not the reason at all, features are regularly added to ruby with much more complicated consequences for the parser. I would speculate the reason is that it's a very consequential change for the user, and they don't want to commit to it yet. I bet Ruby 4.0 will have optional inline types, if it turns out RBS are as functional as is expected.