-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improve docs on Hash #8887
Improve docs on Hash #8887
Conversation
Tweak Hash docs
To me it this information was quite obvious: Hash is ordered, as stated already in the object description. Edit: sorry, I didn't see two different methods description were changed. |
Yeah it is already fairly obvious, but the other methods called it out so I figured why not :) |
attempt give full method signature
I think this is ready for review again, thanks! |
I think this is ready for review again, thanks! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not convinced about the type annotation, but 🤷♂
@asterite What do you mean regarding the type annotation? |
I mean, you usually do Just that feeling. |
Yeah, but we need that signature. Having no signature at all is obviously worse than a signature that could be misunderstood (but really don't lead to any errors).
|
I'll see if I can clarify it...
…On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:42 AM Johannes Müller ***@***.***> wrote:
Yeah, but we need that signature. Having no signature at all is obviously
worse than a signature that could be misunderstood (but really don't lead
to any errors).
& : K, V -> _ would techincally work, there shouldn't be a relevant
difference (then remove the tuple from yield, obviously), but the tuple
signature is required for implementing Enumerable#each(& T : ->).
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#8887 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAADBUHYKWTTY5IFH5W5LQLRLSLMRANCNFSM4LDKPPHA>
.
|
There's no need to do anything else here. I'm just waiting on CI. |
I think CI is stuck FWIW... |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
CI is actually green, just the status hasn't updated.
Thanks @rdp |
Tweak Hash docs