@Eregon (Benoit Daloze) https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17100#note-19 > Re naming of receiving a message, here is the poll I made: > ... Can you just cease your manipulative behaviour, based on faulty generalization resoning in this ...joanbm (Joan Blackmoore)
Although I can understand rationale behind this proposal, I'm not sure it fits Ruby development model too well and in the end it may only lead to its fragmentation. It assumes diligent use of optional experimental features by not inconsi...joanbm (Joan Blackmoore)
Gray Kemmey summed it up [perfectly](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/4475#note-20) . I guess there is really hard to find some adequate counter-argument, defending idea behind #4475 proposal and concluded implementation. I would ...joanbm (Joan Blackmoore)
EDIT: The original request was updated and my comment is related to the meaning of previous one. I *don't agree* with adding method of identical name but distinct semantic, ie. existing `Array#product` as a Cartesian product of elements ...joanbm (Joan Blackmoore)
@Matthew Thought about it again and would agree with the last paragraph. Direct substitution is not appropriate here, despite it sounds logical. The *&.* operator is a strange beast as other general rules also won't apply, like (opti...joanbm (Joan Blackmoore)
I can understand the intention behind the proposal, but would like to express a (strong) disagreement with it. The thing is that it would break language's consistency and is in contradiction to declared behavior. "safe navigation o...joanbm (Joan Blackmoore)
joanbm (Joan Blackmoore)07:21 PM Ruby Feature #17100: Ractor: a proposal for a new concurrent abstraction without thread-safety issues