From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2008-04-27T05:27:20+09:00
Subject: Re: Typed ruby

Hi --

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Joe K wrote:

> I realize there is a holy war attached to this subject, but it would be nice
> to see a standard notation or library that would give 'types' to variables
> and methods, thereby potentially useful for IDE auto-completion; and useful
> for the sake of programmer sanity in general. Currently I document all of
> my methods and most of my variables with types, seeing no purpose to
> re-using variables for different purposes
>
> Is there an endeavor underway anywhere to provide a standard format for
> this? If so, I'd like to use it. A quick google search brings up nothing.

Reading between the lines, I suspect you mean class rather than type,
and it's pretty easy to check objects for their class/module ancestry.
The problem is that Ruby objects have a life that's independent of
their ancestry, so things like #is_a? don't really cover the bases.

In general I wouldn't worry too much about it. For whatever reason,
lots of Ruby programmers seem to be pretty sane :-)


David

-- 
Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
   INTRO TO RAILS         June 9-12            Berlin
   ADVANCING WITH RAILS   June 16-19           Berlin
   INTRO TO RAILS         June 24-27           London (Skills Matter)
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!