I feel we need a agreeable definition of work-items. It is getting confusing already. If the goal is to avoid confusion then exceptions must be avoided.

I feel that the current design area should be a key part of the workflow on any work item, not just type of designs. As a PM I don't schedule designs independently. It's odd to open and close a design issue when it doesn't deliver value to the customer.

Second, if Jenkins runs as PID 1, then it may not receive the signals you send it! That's a subtlety in PID 1. Unlike other unlike processes, PID 1 does not have default signal handlers, which means that if Jenkins hasn't explicitly installed a signal handler for SIGTERM, then that signal is going to be discarded when it's sent (whereas the default behavior would have been to terminate the process).

But what if we’ve more elements to ignore? people = { "Alice" => ["green", 34, "alice@example.com"], "Bob" => ["brown", 27, "bob@example.com"] } No problem. Just re-use the underscore: people.map { |name, (_, _, email)| [name, email] } You can’t do it with any variable, though, at least in Ruby 1.9. It only works with variables that are called _: people.map { |name, (x, x, email)| [name, email] } # SyntaxError: (eval):2: duplicated argument name

Of course, we can always add more special cases to the type system to detect the specific case of iterating over a known-bounded object literal, but this just leads to the "Why does this code not behave like this other nearly-identical code?" problem when we fail to properly exhaust all the special cases.

Die vollständige digitale Reproduktion des Zettelkastens einschließlich aller Vernetzungen stellt die größte und reizvollste Herausforderung dieses Langzeitprojektes dar. Der Entwickler Sebastian Zimmer vom CCeH bezeichnete die Aufgabe als facettenreich und anspruchsvoll: "Immer wieder gibt es Spezialfälle zu entdecken. Dadurch ist der Spaß an der Sache gewährleistet, und es wird nie langweilig."

Special case check = Non-obvious, non-boundary special values, for example log(1 + the smallest floating point number).

Write special-case classes. For example, you will have User base class with multiple error-subclasses like UserNotFound(User) and MissingUser(User). It might be used for some specific situations, like AnonymousUser in django, but it is not possible to wrap all your possible errors in special-case classes. It will require too much work from a developer. And over-complicate your domain model.

Beware, though: What you are about to see is not particularly elegant. In fact, the TTY subsystem — while quite functional from a user's point of view — is a twisty little mess of special cases. To understand how this came to be, we have to go back in time.

The main realization came when I figured out that the main_model was just another association. This means we can move a lot of logic to just that class and reason about it a lot better.

You could decide to trust yourself and your teammates to always remember this special case. You can all freely use short-circuiting, but simply don't allow a short-circuit expression to be on the last line of a script, for anything actually deployed. This may work 100% reliably for you and your team, but I don't believe that is the case for myself and many other developers. Of course, some kind of linter or commit hook might help.

I'm okay with an overall design that allows people to plugin the parts they need in order to be able to generically support a compile-to-javascript language, but to bake in support for one singular solution because its popular is simply bad engineering.

This is the problem with baking in support for frameworks with special cases in the codebase. You can never support all the frameworks. :-(