Issue #17938 has been updated by xtkoba (Tee KOBAYASHI).


When you want to make arguments self-explanatory, I wonder if it is not sufficient to write as follows:
```ruby
obj = Object.new
obj.respond_to?(:symbol, include_all = false)
# or
obj.methods(include_inherited = true)
```


----------------------------------------
Feature #17938: Keyword alternative for boolean positional arguments
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17938#change-92349

* Author: matheusrich (Matheus Richard)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
----------------------------------------
Some Ruby methods accept optional boolean arguments. This kind of parameter is known to be confusing since you cannot tell just looking at the method call what the parameter mean. For example:

```ruby
object.respond_to?(:symbol, false) # what does `false` mean?
object.methods(true) # what does `true` mean?
```

Now compare that to

```ruby
object.respond_to?(:symbol, include_all: false)
object.methods(regular: true)
# or
object.methods(only_public: true)
# or
object.methods(include_all: false)
```

I know Matz doesn't like breaking changes, so maybe we could have both to not break current calls, but allow a nicer syntax in newer Ruby? I don't know the depths of the Ruby C implementation, so here's what I thought in plain Ruby:

```ruby
def respond_to?(symbol, include_all_positional=false, include_all: nil)
  include_all ||= include_all_positional

  # ...
end
```

I'm willing to tackle this, if approved.



-- 
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>