From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2009-02-03T05:27:36+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:21765] Re: New documentation system!

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Mike Furr <furr@cs.umd.edu> wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> Add to this that whether it's "static typing" or not, there's a lot
>> of stupid programmers out there who will think that it is and tend to
>> avoid great ideas like duck-typing and object extensibility. They'll
>> see your definition of #some_method and say "oh, it needs to be a
>> string" and do something stupid like:
> These kinds of annotations already exist in a more ad-hoc way inside
> of RDoc comments.  The fact that they sometimes mention "String"
> instead of "any object with a to_str method" does not mean people
> litter their code with calls to foo.to_str().  I just don't see any
> evidence of people writing the kind of code you presented.

Annotations are one thing; I have no problem with annotations.

The way that I read it, Daniel was suggesting changing the language so
that it's *not* just annotation but actively part of the definition of a
method.

Again, IME, developers treat signatures with more ... reverence, I guess
.. than they do annotations.

It's the signature modification that I'm opposed to, not annotations.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin@zieglers.ca