Another similar library

[egonSchiele]

Hi there,
I'm the author of contracts.ruby, which is very similar to your library! Its neat to see another library for contracts. But I think we are both unnecessarily doing duplicate work. For example, we recently fixed a bug where putting a contract on a private method would make it public. Rubype has the same issue:

require 'rubype'

# ex1: Assert class of args and return
class MyClass
  private
  def private_sum(x, y)
    x + y
  end
  typesig :private_sum, [Numeric, Numeric] => Numeric
end

MyClass.new.private_sum(1, 2) # => should error with private method `private_sum'

Instead of fixing the same issues twice, maybe we should join forces? You already have knowledge on implementing gradual type checking in Ruby, so your input would be valuable.

[gogotanaka]

@egonSchiele Hi! Thanks for getting in touch with me. it's an honour for me.

You'er right, private method should be private method. Thank you for letting me know!

While I'm appreciate your awesome gem and I know your point(I don't wanna reinvent the wheel too),
I think philosophy are slightly different between contracts.ruby and Rubype.

I'm totally OK with sharing knowledge or thought but I can't help contracts.ruby(I'm so sorry about that)
After watching video you posted on vimeo and using it, I found that contracts.ruby works so well, and has much useful functions.
But I wanna make function simpler and basis for Ruby3.0.

Thanks.

[gogotanaka]

@egonSchiele Hi! Thanks for getting in touch with me. it's an honour for me.

You'er right, private method should be private method. Thank you for letting me know!

While I'm appreciate your awesome gem and I know your point(I don't wanna reinvent the wheel too),
I think philosophy are slightly different between contracts.ruby and Rubype.

I'm totally OK with sharing knowledge or thought but I can't help contracts.ruby(I'm so sorry about that)
After watching video you posted on vimeo and using it, I found that contracts.ruby works so well, and has much useful functions.
But I wanna make function simpler and basis for Ruby3.0.

Thanks.

[tfausak]

I think we are both unnecessarily doing duplicate work

👍 This was my first thought upon hearing about Rubype.

I wanna make function simpler and basis for Ruby3.0

Can you expand on this? In what ways in Rubype simpler than contracts.ruby? Or, stated differently, how is contracts.ruby too complex?

[tfausak]

I think we are both unnecessarily doing duplicate work

👍 This was my first thought upon hearing about Rubype.

I wanna make function simpler and basis for Ruby3.0

Can you expand on this? In what ways in Rubype simpler than contracts.ruby? Or, stated differently, how is contracts.ruby too complex?

[egonSchiele]

Do you mean you are hoping to get contracts into Ruby 3.0? If so I would love to help.

[egonSchiele]

Do you mean you are hoping to get contracts into Ruby 3.0? If so I would love to help.

[gogotanaka]

@egonSchiele Hi, Matz(author of CRuby) mentioned Ruby3.0 at the RubyKaigi2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt56zjNf84Q (there is no English subtitles sorry ;( )

He told about Ruby3.0 + Static typing, but I know Rubype itself is far from what Ruby core team might want. I'm gonna make something more close what Ruby3.0 require and want Rubype become a basis for discussion or something motivating other Rubyist.

[gogotanaka]

@egonSchiele Hi, Matz(author of CRuby) mentioned Ruby3.0 at the RubyKaigi2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt56zjNf84Q (there is no English subtitles sorry ;( )

He told about Ruby3.0 + Static typing, but I know Rubype itself is far from what Ruby core team might want. I'm gonna make something more close what Ruby3.0 require and want Rubype become a basis for discussion or something motivating other Rubyist.