Issue #17938 has been updated by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada).


The proposed forms may be too verbose. What about forms like this?

```ruby
object.respond_to?(:symbol, :include_all)
object.methods(:only_public)
```



----------------------------------------
Feature #17938: Keyword alternative for boolean positional arguments
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17938#change-92379

* 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.

---Files--------------------------------
Screenshot from 2021-06-06 11-37-44.png (5.63 KB)


-- 
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>