You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I get that the entire point of this project is to avoid these kinds of discussions and bikeshedding and this would undermine the intent of the project.
I also understand and agree with the intent behind the semantic block rule.
but
It seems impossible to actually get this rule right because there is way too much ruby code in the wild and this rule would have to know every case where it could mess up.
I opened #248 as an example of a class of issues, I was advised to change this specific instance, but I have encountered other cases that this doesn't address (this rule makes usage of the Dry::Initializer gem even uglier ;-) )
#109 was closed out because the specific issues mentioned in it had apparently been addressed, but I feel like the issue was also about the underlying problem.
I seriously want to thank all of the maintainers for making such a great library. I really appreciate your hard work.
If I have to– I guess I can just accept that standard will make my code ugly in places that goes against even its own (and (Jim Weirich's) intent, but it feels like this bummer is bigger than "i disagree with the code style choice" and actually one around correctness.
I understand if this issue gets insta-closed, but I do think there should be an open issue (this one or #109) until there is an explicitly stated decision the problem, rather than closing out issues around specific instances.
Seriously, Thanks again for this software, your time and effort are appreciated!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I get that the entire point of this project is to avoid these kinds of discussions and bikeshedding and this would undermine the intent of the project.
I also understand and agree with the intent behind the semantic block rule.
but
It seems impossible to actually get this rule right because there is way too much ruby code in the wild and this rule would have to know every case where it could mess up.
I opened #248 as an example of a class of issues, I was advised to change this specific instance, but I have encountered other cases that this doesn't address (this rule makes usage of the Dry::Initializer gem even uglier ;-) )
#109 was closed out because the specific issues mentioned in it had apparently been addressed, but I feel like the issue was also about the underlying problem.
I think #94 and #246 are also related to this.
I seriously want to thank all of the maintainers for making such a great library. I really appreciate your hard work.
If I have to– I guess I can just accept that standard will make my code ugly in places that goes against even its own (and (Jim Weirich's) intent, but it feels like this bummer is bigger than "i disagree with the code style choice" and actually one around correctness.
I understand if this issue gets insta-closed, but I do think there should be an open issue (this one or #109) until there is an explicitly stated decision the problem, rather than closing out issues around specific instances.
Seriously, Thanks again for this software, your time and effort are appreciated!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: