On 12/13/2017 10:04 AM, Arvin Schnell wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 07:36:19AM +0000, Imobach González Sosa wrote: >> On Wed, 2017-12-13 at 00:18 +0100, Ancor Gonzalez Sosa wrote: > > > I always though the function with ! modifies the argument while > the one without returns a modified object. > >> On the other hand, I've been taking care of YaST incoming bugs these >> days and I can hardly remember an "internal error" caused by some out- >> of-control nil value. > > I can remember bugs of the kind "undefined method xxx for > nilClass".
Sure they happen, although different people may have different perceptions on how often. But my point was - please, stop identifying every single one of those bugs with a lack of type checking. Most of the times they mean something else. > And I can also remember bugs where a function name was simply > mistyped. Yes. That has happened. And yes, a more static language would have avoided that at compilation time. But it happens VERY seldom. Maybe twice a year for the whole YaST. This is the very small subset of all the "undefined method xxx" that are indeed a consequence of Ruby dynamic approach. Don't put all the other bugs in the same basket just because the text of the exception looks similar. Cheers. -- Ancor González Sosa YaST Team at SUSE Linux GmbH -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
