Phil Pirozhkov

Does [this](https://github.com/rubocop-hq/ruby-style-guide/#keyword-arguments-vs-optional-arguments) cover the rule of thumb, or would you add something, or would like to extend it to be more clear, @marcandre ? It seems that there's nothing actionable...

"Prefer keyword arguments" in "Keyword Arguments vs Optional Arguments" is a soft recommendation. Some would still prefer using optional positional arguments and "Optional Arguments" section will still be quite useful...

> Can we make is a hard recommendation, and remove the "Optional arguments" then? 🤷 If we'd move to a three-grade system similar to [RFC2119](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119) like #521 suggests, I'm all...

I have a completely different suggestion. I clearly understand isn't a silver bullet. Double indent just for the reference: ```ruby if @bisect_runner_class && value != @bisect_runner && allow_multiple_bisects? log "error...

Both exampes look extremely awkward. Would you like to send a pull request?

Do you think this is specific to Rails? I can transfer it to the Ruby Style Guide issue tracker for you.

I mean `constantize` is definitely a Rails-related method, but is it about constantize or instrumenting class names? ```ruby > self.class.const_get("Obj" + "ect") => Object ```

A pull request is welcome!

Couldn't quickly find it in the [docs](https://relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-core/v/3-9/docs/command-line/line-number-appended-to-file-path), but [RSpec understands `[1:1:1:1:2]` as well](https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/blob/c095d6dac68b76ac85957dc417751f014cccf316/spec/integration/filtering_spec.rb#L238).

@EPecherkin @jaimerson @pluff I don't have the capacity for CrystalBall right now, appreciate if you could take this over.