Bozhidar Batsov
Bozhidar Batsov
Yeah, I agree. We should definitely add some guidelines about `&.`.
Yeah, I totally agree this can be worded better and examples can be added.
I completely agree. I'll just add that apart from arrays we have other collections that might be a reasonable result (e.g. hash, set, etc), plus a multi-value `return`.
Not intended. The point was avoid sequential expressions (e.g. `foo; bar`). The language should definitely be improved here.
> I would argue that the single line version of the syntax is a rare example of ruby being surprising and inconsistent. I wouldn't use the word "rare" here. 😆...
@GuyPaddock Good points. I completely agree we can improve the wording and extend the current rule to be more informative. PRs welcome!
:+1: Sounds good to me.
Personally, I think options 1 & 2 most appealing; 3 looks too much like a method call to me. @jdickey RuboCop already flags methods with more that n args. I...
Yeah, that'd be awesome. I've always hated the need to use `private_const` and `private_class_method`. Based on my observation this gets newcomers every single time and that's why eventually we added...
> What do folks think of this idiom? Can we integrate a recommendation in the guide, or at least specify this as an acceptable alternative to the private declaration making...