Ary Borenszweig
Ary Borenszweig
It's fine, we can leave the ip address as zero for interpreted mode. In the end backtraces in the interpreter are done in a completely different way, so it makes...
(I also wrote that comment while I was writing the interpreter, so I knew what was coming :-P)
It's a bug, probably related to generic types. It's also probably not going to be fixed soon.
You mean that the runtime is returning a type that the user can see, but it's not documented, so it should be documented? That's not the right thing to do....
If you introspect code in Java, C#, etc., you can get named of private types. That doesn't mean they should be documented... this has been like that for years already....
What method are we talking about? If it's body_io, that's an IO.
@straight-shoota Wrong, because when you execute the code with a Java debugger you will see the actual type.
What people are proposing here basically means "let's get rid of private types and hiding implementation details".
You know what other language works that way? Ruby! Yes, Ruby leaks implementation everywhere. Ruby was and is still our inspiration. I never found this to be a problem in...
This is probably true also in Python and many other dynamic languages. Yes, at runtime, or even at compile-time in Crystal you will learn the types with `typeof`. That's never...