Should focus on String.new not String#initialize.
#1789
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
not `String#initialize`.
soutaro
approved these changes
Apr 6, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There is a slight difference in the allowed types between
String#initializeandString#new.The current signature focuses on
String#initialize, and includes cases whereString.newwould fail.There's an option to separate the signatures for
String.newandString#initialize, but it's hard to see the benefit of allowingcapacityandencodingto be nil.In this revision, I've changed to a signature that only works with
String.new.I believe this is simpler and more practical.