05:02 <ZEN_GURU> hello everyone.. please chat to me... :) now .. right now!

05:21 <o0x1eef> I'm out of practice. I didn't realize keyword args are kind of funky. As a library designer I wouldn't want the caller to write **options all the time. Sure, it adds complexity for the callee | implementation but for the caller I don't see any drawbacks?

05:22 <o0x1eef> I'll definitely use them sparingly from here on out

16:05 <adam12> o0x1eef: I don't follow.

18:30 <o0x1eef> It might be a bit complicated to explain. In Ruby we usually pass options as a Hash object, and those options can be built via a local variable. You would typically pass it like so: foo(options). And with kw args, we can accept variable options via **options. **options serves the same purpose as an options hash - variable key/value pairs, but your options Hash must become foo(**options). That quickly

18:30 <o0x1eef> becomes funky if you accept variable options often in that way.

18:31 <o0x1eef> So I think variable options should indeed always be a Hash, and kw args should describe a couple of parameters, maybe three or four at most. I'm wary of them to be honest. I think they're too similar to a Hash and yet different. The more I use them the more edge cases I find,

18:33 <o0x1eef> adam12: Any thoughts? ^

18:33 <adam12> o0x1eef: I dont' pass options as a Hash that often. I prefer proper keyword args as they cause me less grief.

18:34 <o0x1eef> I went that route at first, but then I noticed I was using **options quite often (as a caller), and I didn't like it.

18:34 <adam12> o0x1eef: I don't think much about **options, tbh.

18:34 <adam12> I just do it.

18:36 <o0x1eef> Hm fair enough. I don't know though. I don't think the implementation is as solid as other languages. Python has a different syntax,and then dicts for hash-like objects, which are more similar to Ruby. In Ruby they're convulted into the same syntax, and kind of feel like they were pushed through to make them fit.

18:38 <o0x1eef> At least for me I'm going to be more careful when I use them. I'm going to use them more like positional arguments. Few parameters. Not as a replacement for a Hash of options.

18:45 <o0x1eef> Then again that might just be an uphill battle not worth fighting. I don't know. Need to think about it a bit more.

19:12 <o0x1eef> Interesting. In Ruby2 you could pass options without the double splat.

20:00 <o0x1eef> adam12: Do you use solar or something else for ruby's lsp?

20:59 <adam12> o0x1eef: I've been using ruby-lsp, tho I use very little LSP features in Ruby.

20:59 <adam12> o0x1eef: I built ruby-lsp.nvim to make the ruby-lsp experience a bit nicer in neovim.

21:00 <adam12> I do find the solargraph LSP somewhat nicer for stdlib docs.

21:00 <o0x1eef> Alright. Thanks. I probably need to install one of the two (emacs is complaining about typeprof or something similar).

21:02 <adam12> o0x1eef: I didn't have much luck with typeprof, sadly.

21:02 <o0x1eef> Me neither, so far :D

21:02 <o0x1eef> Just a constant error

21:03 <adam12> I'm gradually using more of ruby-lsp. Just recently we shipped code lens support to the neovim plugin, so now I can run independent tests with the codelens feature.

21:05 <o0x1eef> Nice!