3 ms·
> We have several more ways to define methods already, and always have. If you think this gives us two perhaps the problem is you don't know the language very w
by stouset 3y ago
> We have several more ways to define methods already, and always have. If you think this gives us two perhaps the problem is you don't know the language very well.
Resorting to semantic-lawyering doesn’t add to your argument, it detracts from it. You know the point I was making.
- vidarh 3y agoI don't think the point you were making has any validity. It's not semantic-lawyering given that other ways of defining methods are common in larger Ruby code-bases, so you're already going to need to deal with a variety of far more complex things. If "end-less" defs is enough to throw you, then perhaps Ruby just isn't the language for you, and that's fine.