1\. Currently, `Ruby::Box` provides an `#inspect` method, and its output is reasonably short yet mysterious: ```ruby Ruby::Box.new #=> #<Namespace:3,user,optional> ``` First, it uses old `Namespace` name instead of `Ruby::Box`. Next...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
I am not sure whether all the problems have the same nature, but putting them together for now. **1. Enabling box breaks `gem`+`require`** Minimal reproducible example: `test.rb`: ```ruby gem 'faraday', '= 2.14.0' require '...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
NB: Tentatively reopening this ticket, as it was autoclosed by the referring commit, but the ticket's scope is not only about the inclusion of `Ruby::Box` in the RDoc output.zverok (Victor Shepelev)
A quick couple of questions in the light of upcoming Ruby 4.0 release and `Ruby::Box` being available there (even if as an experimental feature): 1. Should the documentation of the class be available as RDoc? I mean, as standard class...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
I'll allow myself to copy-paste my reasoning from the related ticket #14602: Just a bit of "design space" analysis: 1. I think `dig!` is unusual for core Ruby. A lot of Rubyists are used that in Rails pairs like `find_by`/`find_by!...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
Just a thought: shouldn't we add `#join` to `Enumerator::Lazy`? It wouldn't solve "logical repetitiveness" of the pattern, but might be a good _and_ idiomatic way to optimize the pattern when necessary. (Lazy enumerators are underused...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
@Alexander.Senko I don't think my opinion weights much here, but here it is, nevertheless. When writing in "chaining" style (which I know is not everybody's favorite), "do this transformation/next step conditionally" is indeed a frequ...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
> However, I'm still curious why I've come up with this `#[]` idea. > ... I am not sure about this argument. The "can be initialized with keyword arguments" and "can be converted to Hash" are probably the most common features among all ...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
The design goal of `Data` was to be as close to "just a simple atomic object" as possible and convenient. It is a "value object," not a "container". `#[]` is closer to a container protocol and starts to erode the design. For a partic...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
> I think an important question is whether the simplified Date should be ::Date, or something like ::Time::Date. One issue with making the simplified version ::Date is it opens up backwards compatibility issues for code that uses feature...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
zverok (Victor Shepelev)07:53 PM Ruby Misc #21762 (Open): Box: Inspect improvements