Document RBS block syntax #8828
Conversation
website/docs/rbs-support.md
<
8000
span title="Label: Outdated" data-view-component="true" class="Label Label--secondary">
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
1115625 to
b0dc475
Compare
website/docs/rbs-support.md
Outdated
| | [Block type] | `{ (Foo) -> Bar }` | [`T.proc.params(arg: Foo).returns(Bar)`](procs.md) | | ||
| | [Optional Block type] | `?{ (Foo) -> Bar }` | [`T.nilable(T.proc.params(arg: Foo).returns(Bar))`](procs.md#optional-blocks) | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I originally had these as a single row with <br>, but that didn't look great.
This looks better, although the optional block line ends up split over two lines due to the way the table gets formatted. I might try opening a different PR that switches the last column to use actual ```ruby code blocks, and spread the type_parameters example over multiple lines, which I suspect would fix that and read better anyway (on top of giving us formatting for the Sorbet code).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
#8831 is being merged, so I'll rebase ahead of it to streamline review.
36f2b1a to
844b074
Compare
|
|
While `sig` style signatures use the same syntax to describe blocks as `Proc`s, RBS syntax doesn't.
Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access
|
Nevermind, it was the reference link indentation. I've pushed a fix. cc. @jez |
This adds entries to the RBS "quick reference" table for (mandatory) and optional blocks.
Motivation
While
sigstyle signatures use the same syntax to describe blocks asProcs, RBS syntax doesn't.Test plan
This is a documentation only change.