Idea for some syntactic sugar

[walski]

Hey, this is more or less a very hacky spike of making the type definition a little more "natural".

I hope this inspires some more clever people than me to come up with an idea for syntax that makes the extra call to typesig after a method definition less painful.

My solution currently looks like this:

require 'rubype/syntactic_sugar'
[Numeric, Numeric, String] > def sum(x, y)
  (x + y).to_s
end

and out of pure laziness it only supports classes, not your symbol-method-name notation.

What do you folks think? Was fun to hack on this :) Keep up the good work!

[walski]

Hm seems to break on Ruby 2.0 :(