[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

1.9 Backport?

Trans

10/26/2006 12:32:00 PM

Reading:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2006/10/26/rubyconf-2...

If Ruby 1.9+ won't be released for over a year, can we backport a few
features? Most noteabley #instance_exec and the ability of a block to
take a &block argument --the lack of these exact a heavy toll on good
clean metacode.

Also, is it true RCRchive is to be no more?

Thanks,
T.
9 Answers

Austin Ziegler

10/26/2006 1:03:00 PM

0

On 10/26/06, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> Reading:
> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2006/10/26/rubyconf-2...
> If Ruby 1.9+ won't be released for over a year, can we backport a few
> features? Most noteabley #instance_exec and the ability of a block to
> take a &block argument --the lack of these exact a heavy toll on good
> clean metacode.

Probably not. Ruby 1.8 is supposed to be *stable*, and I doubt that
there'll be a shim like there was for Ruby 1.6 to 1.8, either.

> Also, is it true RCRchive is to be no more?

No. Take a look at my blog; RCRchive is going to change focus into
probably being a starting point for discussion, but *how* such entries
are processed will probably change from the current software to
something else that allows for mailing-list discussions.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halo...
* austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halo...feed/
* austin@zieglers.ca

Bil Kleb

10/26/2006 1:09:00 PM

0

Trans wrote:
> Reading:
> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2006/10/26/rubyconf-2...
>
> Also, is it true RCRchive is to be no more?

No.

RCRchive is to be remade. Most RCRs will be tossed
because new RCRs are required to explain the *WHY*
behind the proposed change and come replete with tests
and sample implementations. (Most current RCRs don't
satisfy these criteria.)

See Matz's keynote,

http://www.travelistic.com/vide...

beginning with bikeshed at 7:30.

Later,
--
Bil Kleb
http://kleb.tadalist.com/lists/pub...

James Gray

10/26/2006 1:34:00 PM

0

On Oct 26, 2006, at 8:10 AM, Bil Kleb wrote:

> Trans wrote:
>> Reading:
>> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2006/10/26/rubyconf-2...
>> Also, is it true RCRchive is to be no more?
>
> No.
>
> RCRchive is to be remade.

Sorry, that was sloppy explaining on my part. I've tried to clean it
up.

James Edward Gray II

dblack

10/26/2006 1:50:00 PM

0

Trans

10/26/2006 2:10:00 PM

0


Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Reading:
> > http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2006/10/26/rubyconf-2...
> > If Ruby 1.9+ won't be released for over a year, can we backport a few
> > features? Most noteabley #instance_exec and the ability of a block to
> > take a &block argument --the lack of these exact a heavy toll on good
> > clean metacode.
>
> Probably not. Ruby 1.8 is supposed to be *stable*, and I doubt that
> there'll be a shim like there was for Ruby 1.6 to 1.8, either.

Right. I realize. I was just hoping that a few significant features
that are pure "superset" could make it back.

T.

Austin Ziegler

10/26/2006 2:23:00 PM

0

On 10/26/06, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > On 10/26/06, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Reading:
> > > http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2006/10/26/rubyconf-2...
> > > If Ruby 1.9+ won't be released for over a year, can we backport a few
> > > features? Most noteabley #instance_exec and the ability of a block to
> > > take a &block argument --the lack of these exact a heavy toll on good
> > > clean metacode.
> > Probably not. Ruby 1.8 is supposed to be *stable*, and I doubt that
> > there'll be a shim like there was for Ruby 1.6 to 1.8, either.
> Right. I realize. I was just hoping that a few significant features
> that are pure "superset" could make it back.

I sympathize, but I read something about the Denver Summit (posted on
RedHanded by Daigo) indicating that absolutely no new features will be
added to Ruby 1.8. Just bug fixes.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halo...
* austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halo...feed/
* austin@zieglers.ca

Michael Trier

10/26/2006 2:36:00 PM

0

> I sympathize, but I read something about the Denver Summit (posted on
> RedHanded by Daigo) indicating that absolutely no new features will be
> added to Ruby 1.8. Just bug fixes.

In the roundtable there was a specific question about backporting some
functionality. I don't recall the functionality that was being
discussed, but I clearly remember Matz indicating that he would be
willing to backport functionality if it had no impact on the current
code. The specific item being discussed wouldn't have, and he said he
would be open to looking at it.

Michael

Keith Fahlgren

10/27/2006 3:28:00 PM

0

On 10/26/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Bil Kleb wrote:
>
> > Trans wrote:
> >> Reading:
> >> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2006/10/26/rubyconf-2...
> >>
> >> Also, is it true RCRchive is to be no more?
> >
> > No.
>
> In fact, I'm hard at work on the new RCRchive. Stay tuned. It's
> going to operate somewhat differently, and will be focused on 1.9/2.0
> changes.

Cool. Let's just make sure that the old ones don't get "tossed', as
I'm sure there'll be some historical value in them.


Thanks,
Keith

Joy Beeson

10/3/2010 2:14:00 AM

0

On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 05:05:50 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

> In article <d3bda65hmg0f4od50kqpdd8v56hnc8rt1h@4ax.com>,

> That might not be too bad, if the husband doesn't hang out in any
> of the huts long enough to mess them up. (Where does he live?
> Under a tree?)

Kiranta left town before I had to commit myself.

There are a few clues: she knows that the headman's first wife will
be awake because she always prepares Nigel's breakfast, which implies
that he doesn't have to eat with the wife that he sleeps with. On
her way out of town, Kiranta sees Sara's oldest son and presumes that
he is on his way to eat breakfast with his parents, which implies that
he doesn't live with his mother, but doesn't say whether he has his
own hut or the bachelors of the town room together. Probably a little
of each. Since he's ready to marry, I'd guess that Mike has a hut of
his own, which he will give to his first wife.

After telling Sara that she doesn't want to wake Nigel, she says, "It
would be his night with Tola, so I'd like to leave my needle case with
you for her.", which implies that Nigel, at least, rotates among his
wives' huts on a schedule.

When planning a wedding gift for Mike, she reflects that "A
nicely-written history of Pine Ridge would do; a book looked fine in a
headman's hut, and Tola would read it to her stepson." This implies
that Nigel has a separate hut, but I think that this is more of an
office than a dwelling-place. He will probably give it to Mike when
he retires.

Pity I can't write the sequel to "The Dying Demon". I'd like to read
it.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.co...
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.