-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 110
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update RBS for Rack #210
Comments
I’m going to (partially) improve the RBS through PR. This doesn’t answer my concern with (consistent) maintenance for Rack 3 though. (It’s better not to have an incompetent tool than to accept its hindrance. (not a proverb)) |
ParadoxV5
added a commit
to ParadoxV5/gem_rbs_collection
that referenced
this issue
Oct 2, 2022
inferred from source code and Rack SPEC fixes blockquote of ruby#210
Checklist of Classes/Modules (as of #232)
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I am currently tinkering with Rack and RBS, using this collection for Rack’s RBS. Unfortunately, it is quite lacklustre. It looks like it was partially prepared by @mame and TypeProf through #36 and never touched since.
I’ve inquired about Rack’s opinion on developing RBS themselves through rack/rack#1967. In summary, their consensus is that RBS’s benefits aren’t significant enough to justify the labour of coercing Rack’s duck types to RBS’s static typing. In that discussion, I highlighted: [Update: #232 covers this blockquote]
[Significatly modified section starts]
Rack::Lint
already detail acceptable types (static or duck) equal to or better than a set of RBS could.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: