Max VelDink

Created #90 to address the file change! One last thing would be renaming the entire package. Currently, it's `openfeature-sdk`, which isn't too wild. The only thing we might consider is...

We also have a test that executes the examples from the README. We should continue to have that work.

We've done a few releases so far, and [are listed](https://openfeature.dev/ecosystem?instant_search%5BrefinementList%5D%5Btechnology%5D%5B0%5D=Ruby) on the OF website now. Closing this as I believe we've fulfilled the scope here

Sure! I've got an idea to expand that section out anyway and remove that metaprogramming. I'll clean it up tomorrow morning if I've got some time, and when I'm back...

Apologies for the delay here; I'm taking a look this morning. I'm not able to replicate this locally loading the gem in a console and my projects utilizing OF don't...

Yes, sorry for the delay; I'll be working on this tomorrow (I think I've got the under lying reason) and will cut a release once that's approved.

@Kameleoon I've been playing around with this issue tonight, and I'm unable to replicate that problem locally on `main`. Your snippet was helpful, but I'm seeing a successful evaluation there....

Glad that we got it solved! Reach out if you have any other issues with the SDK!

I also like this idea of detecting where a requirement is implemented in the SDKs. I'm unsure if there's going to be an easy way to standardize the annotations easily....

Meta was a better name than `multiple_source` from my original implementation 😂 But, I do like the idea of `composite` and am open to other name ideas too. The only...