From: "ioquatix (Samuel Williams)" <noreply@...>
Date: 2022-10-31T06:54:51+00:00
Subject: [ruby-core:110557] [Ruby master Feature#19094] `sleep(nil)` vs `sleep()` and replicating the default implementation.

Issue #19094 has been updated by ioquatix (Samuel Williams).


Haha, great, but I think it's odd you can't just write `sleep(nil)`. I guess Ruby uses `Qundef` internally, but user can't write `sleep(undef)`, but `sleep(*nil)` is close. Actually, I didn't even know you can write `sleep(*nil)` to get that behaviour, so I think it's not a good solution in general, it's too obscure.

----------------------------------------
Feature #19094: `sleep(nil)` vs `sleep()` and replicating the default implementation.
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19094#change-99886

* Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: ioquatix (Samuel Williams)
----------------------------------------
```
> sleep(nil)
(irb):1:in `sleep': can't convert NilClass into time interval (TypeError)
```

However, I feel that this makes implementing a compatible sleep method a little difficult.

```ruby
def sleep(time = nil)
  if time
    sleep_some(time)
  else
    sleep_forever
  end
end
```

Can we consider allowing `sleep(nil)` and `sleep(false)` to be the same as `sleep()` to simplify this behaviour?

Otherwise, it's hard to proxy (e.g. fiber scheduler, or even just a plain old variable argument).

e.g.

```ruby
class Sleeper
  def initialize(time = nil)
    @time = time
  end

  def sleep
    Kernel::sleep(@time) # Hard to get the behaviour of `sleep()` here without explicitly handling/checking.
  end
end
```




-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>