Jeremy Evans

I don't foresee any issues with that approach, so if you want to send in a pull request for it, I think it could be accepted.

If you don't want to provide a pull request, could you post the output of `git diff`?

That looks good to me, thank you for the patch. I don't have access to test compilation with PulseAudio at the moment. @tomscii any chance you review and test?

I think grouping based on required/optional makes the most sense, but as long as they are clearly marked (without having to read all of the text), I think it's fine.

I'm not pedantic about this. As `+` is fewer characters than ``, and I believe they are interchangeable from RDoc::Markup perspective, it seems best to use `+` in the cases...

`instances` seems more precise than `values` to me. As Ruby doesn't have the primitive/object distinction (unlike Java or Python), `instance` is not inaccurate to describe any Ruby object. I will...

If `startdoc` is there to work around an RDoc bug, I'm fine keeping it. If the output is the same if you remove it, I recommend removing it.

I haven't used node in about a decade, so I'm not a good person to ask.

Looks like we'd need Sinatra to update their tests first: https://github.com/jeremyevans/rack/actions/runs/14003034172/job/39212820448#step:5:4764

It isn't appropriate to add a dependency on csv to tilt, since csv is optional and not required. Most other libraries you have to already list in the Gemfile separately,...