Re: Ruby3 Will Have Types
Nicola Mingotti <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.ruby.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
good news !
I like it, until types are not mandatory and I am not forced to change
my existing code ;)
bye
n.
On 4/19/19 1:41 AM, Gerald Bauer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Today's biggest (most upvoted) story on Hacker News:
>
> Ruby3 Will Have Types [1]
>
> Any comments or thoughts here on ruby-talk about the breaking news?
>
> Here are my two cents:
>
> As a head start you can add the missing Bool type today :-), use the
> safebool library / gem [2]
>
> Sorbet is a great inspiring project. Hopefully, open source soon.
> FYI: sruby - that is (secure) ruby [3] - is an alternative ruby
> (subset) with an alternative (optional) type annotation syntax e.g.
>
> Sorbet's `sig {params(x: Integer).returns(String)}`
>
> becomes
>
> `sig [Integer] => [String]` or `sig Integer => String`
>
> Note: Since the sig is "yes, it's just (regular) ruby" code you can
> create an alias for types e.g. I = Integer, S = String and than use
> sig I=>S, for example.
>
> Cheers. Prost. Happy (type-safe) coding with ruby.
>
> [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19697405
> [2] https://github.com/s6ruby/safebool
> [3] https://github.com/s6ruby
>
> Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>