On: RBS, Ruby’s new type signature language

[jrochkind1]

doh! good point.

I am not able to spin that into "And besides it's better to force it to be in two files anyway!", I don't think it is, but I guess it's not so easy to do different.

[TylerE → jrochkind1]

Header files suck. Anything is better than a separate file.

[dragonwriter → TylerE]

> Anything is better than a separate file.

I dunno. Massive breakages of backward compatibility in an established language may not be better than that.

[Coryodaniel → dragonwriter]

It is a major version change, right? It seems like the best time to introduce some breaking changes for the betterment of the language.

[djur → Coryodaniel]

Syntax changes of this magnitude would make the Python 3 migration timeline look quick and painless.

[Lio → jrochkind1]

If we could write tests in .rbs files it would more naturally fit into existing 2 file workflows.

Mind you, if we could write tests in .rbs then I guess .rbs could form the basis of a new ruby syntax without breaking compatibility with old code in .rb files.