Re: Small improvements to ruby-mode

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 22.06.2013 11:05, Bozhidar Batsov wrote:
> > Should we add more, e.g. include,
> > attr_accessor, using, refine?
> Yes, I think we should definitely add more. The ones you listed - for
> sure. We should also add fail (it's a synonym for raise), extend, etc.
> Btw catch is also a method, not a keyword. loop should also be on the
> second list, as should be proc and lambda IMO.

Ok, also done (except for etc :)), together with other attr* methods, 
and define_method.

> I'd also suggest adding the "command-like" methods for Kernel that are
> usually used without an explicit receiver everywhere. There's not that
> many such commands:
>
> abort
> at_exit
> eval
> exec
> exit
> exit!
> fail
> fork
> format
> p
> print
> printf
> putc
> puts
> rand
> sleep
> spawn
> sprintf
> srand
> syscall
> system
> trap
> warn

I'm less sure about these. Every method on Kernel is usually called 
without an explicit receiver, and there are more of them.
Let's wait for another opinion.

> > I'm not so sure about re-implementing it, though. It's easy enough to
> > install in its current form, no?
> Sure - my point is that not all Emacs users would know about the
> package. I'd venture a guess saying most of them won't. The
> functionality in it seems a perfect fit for ruby-mode. Even if it has to
> be reimplemented - we're talking about a only a handful of not
> particularly complex commands.

Patches welcome. :)

Personally, I haven't found myself using ruby-tools too often:

1) I don't subscribe to your principle of single quotes vs. double 
quotes. So, when I'm adding an interpolation to a string, it's usually 
double-quoted already.

2) Automatic insertion of curly braces after "#" in strings is annoying 
when you're actually trying to type "#", for example when writing a 
method signature. I also disagree with "don't leave out {} around 
instance and global variables".

But as optional commands with less invasive bindings ("C-c #"?), they 
would be fine.