Stephen Best
Stephen Best
Why? Isn't it objectively better to have tokens your editor can match effectively and have a simpler rule about block definition. Also comes back to my "fewer keywords" goal.
Your point is valid I'm sure there are editor plugins for this, though I'd be skeptical about how good they are to use day to day. The general point still...
``` ruby expect(:bees).to matcher { 1337 } expect(:bees).to matcher do 1337 end ``` I find both those code samples to be a little bit obnoxious for exactly the reason you...
@jdickey Another issue I have with `end` is that it's not always matched with a `do`. Class, module and if statements are the instances that spring to mind.
While I totally agree with that I'm not sure such a prescription falls under style which I define as something like "different syntax for expressing the same behaviour". Isn't this...
Honestly I think always using `define_method` is just the logical conclusion of this approach. Also you can't use `super` which not only eliminates inheritance but removes another keyword form use.
I'm not actually doing this at the moment :trollface:
Not sure I'd meta-programme more, you know meta programming is happening when the method name is not a symbol literal. Objective reason it's better: There is one way to define...
I think we agreed that allowing `#define_method` to be aliased to something shorter was ok. Shall I close?
Me too!. Looks like it's removed now. Can we get a patch release?