You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The proc type means it can receive any argument and any keywords, while what we want is a proc is required but the type of its arguments is not checked. So, we want to introduce a new syntax for untyped args.
Can simply use Proc for lambdas; this new syntax mainly benefits untyped blocks
untyped -> void
This suggestion is uncomfortably similar to (untyped) -> void. In fact, it conflicts with the possibility of making arguments’ round parentheses optional (if there’s such a possibility).
I'm going to implement it in (?) -> void syntax. ... would be confusing because Ruby has similar syntax with totally different semantics. untyped -> void is too similar to normal positional argument.
AR::Base.scope
accepts lambdas, but the type of the lambdas is difficult to describe in RBS.The proc type means it can receive any argument and any keywords, while what we want is a proc is required but the type of its arguments is not checked. So, we want to introduce a new syntax for untyped args.
Possible syntax:
Any other ones?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: