I am not sure what it is exactly, and maybe its just a matter of getting used to them.We do not want to have to propagate refinements through to the default implementation of those methods.Primarily refinements will be useful for things like debugging and profiling.Thanks for working on this, it looks like a cool and useful feature.I met ko1 last Thursday, and he agreed with my proposal at that time.I guess you think so because we are not used to the feature yet.
The alternative would be to let everyone doing any experiment.People may find good practices to control the power somehow, then it.
Your suggestion is really well-conceived, but still needs discussion.Sorry, this got double-posted because I thought my email did not come through properly.But there does need to be a way to group refinements, and there should probably be a way to combine groups as well.And having to group refinements in modules seems overly complicated for many cases.If we push a partial implementation now, we may be making a future implementation harder and we would not be protecting ourselves from mistakes.Being able to use multiple different monkey-patches in the same method body.
In the sense, nested function by using refinements may be a problem.On the other hand, if the feature leaked via local rebinding or via.I much prefer the approach above instead of the DSL approach you.
It also keeps definition of refinements separate from their use, and lets you use an anonymous refinement inside a module without exporting it.The map method may force refinements on the block. you must look for all implementations of map() that might be called here to see if they force refinements into the block.Suddenly my code, tested in my environment, can behave completely differently just by being passed as a block.I like the fact that there are no functions (except lambda) in Ruby.If a module or class is using refinements, they are enabled in.If so then using could be tied per-gem rather then just per file.
Special pleading for it to be removed does not further the conversation.Speaking as someone who writes a lot of libraries, I would be very likely to.The bottom line is that making any core methods reflect refinements may be more confusing, because only direct invocations will work.not wrapped invocations, called-method invocations, or double-dispatched invocations.So we still have to be paranoid about using refinements in library code, which kind of defeats the purpose.I think everyone knows how to check out an alternative branch or.
If something fails due to a data error introduced mid-stack due to an unexpected refinement then you have to walk up the stack checking to see what refinements are used.I think doing this would be a great disservice to the Ruby community.
And once decided, it should not be changed in the future which of refinements and subclasses have priority.Super logic than can operate as it should, using the refined scope to do the subsequent super lookup, which it finds in the hierarchy in the normal way.Recall that previously, refinements were largely lexical and morely.
Basketball (Hot) Space Ace: Candy Crush: Crypt Raider: Boulder Dash:.If Ruby 2.0 is released without a properly defined way of how refinements work and that they will be supported in that way well into the future, we very well may end up with an implementation that no one really likes but has to be supported indefinitely.People build some culture over what is Ruby best practices and what is not.MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — The Latest developments from the 2016 presidential campaign, with the focus Tuesday on the New Hampshire primary (all times local.