Issue #17399 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler).


I guess the discussion here may be more what exactly "experimental" means, similar
to what people expect a "constant" to be (non-changable, but if you come from
the point of view of ruby's philosophy then it makes sense to be able to change
it and not get into the way of the ruby user; similar situation to Filex.exist?
versus File.exists?, where the "correct" answer depends on the point of view).

Even the "experimental it needs to warn" may be context-dependent - a warning
may be super-helpful, but also not so helpful (see the keyword args change 
in the past).

> I agree with @mame. I just "rediscovered" refinements this year 
> Experimental features are typically new features.

Yeah but I think refinements are no longer "experimental" since some time. :)
(Although I'd love some syntax changes ... but I don't want to distract
from this issue here.)

In some ways I can understand zverok and eregon, not necessarily agreeing
with them on the topic, since I think it is also context-dependent on 
the feature itself. For a newcomer experimenting with a feature, the 
warning may be helpful, whereas for those who already use pattern 
matching, they may not need the warning.

But it's late in 2020! 2021 is a new year for new ideas and suggestions -
happy holidays! :D

----------------------------------------
Misc #17399: Are endless methods experimental?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17399#change-89389

* Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
----------------------------------------
They are marked as such in NEWS, but an attempt to define one doesn't produce a warning (unlike other features marked this way, like one-line pattern-matching or find patterns)



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>