Re: Layout of includes in ruby 1.9

ts wrote:
>>>>>> "G" == Gonzalo Garramu=F1o?= <ISO-8859-1> writes:
> 
> G> What was really the purpose of this change?   I'm trying to figure out 
> G> what benefit a developer gets out of this compared to just being able to 
> G> have a simple #define that tells the version number.
> 
>  This will be worst because you need to know for each version what
>  possibilities you have.

And that's bad?

I see it as worse what you describe.  You would have to test *all* 
methods of your string object.

If your object does not respond well to all string methods (or has 
additional methods), it isn't really a string object according to that 
ruby version.  Using your string object interchanged for a real string 
may result in some assertion happening later (best case if duck typing 
catches the issue) or wrong behavior (worse case if duck typing does not).

The only way to know for sure if your object can be used in replacement 
for another is really through good unit tests.  But that's no different 
whether you use a version number or try-compile checks.

By what you are proposing, if I am embedding ruby, it means then that I 
now have to test each and every single method in ruby I use to see if it 
is still around (and not only that -- if it has the same signature!)? 
And if it is not there, I have to compensate for it?  That's madness. 
To me, if I use the 1.8 or 1.9 branch I expect to be guaranteed that 
certain functions and functionality is (or isn't) there.

The approach you describe seems like a "carte blanche" to allow ruby 
developers to just break the ruby api at any time and not have to ever 
worry about backwards compatibility.

> 
>  And if one of these methods will be removed in the future, my extension
>  will still work and respond like a String object
> 

Really?  How?  Will it magically create the missing code?  You will 
still need some test to fail and then add the missing C code yourself.

I honestly don't see any advantage to this approach.  Writing 
try-compile tests will not free me from writing unit tests.  But it now 
puts a big burden on *me* to have to keep forwards compatibility with 
whatever is the latest ruby version or change.


-- 
Gonzalo Garramu
[e-mail]

AMD4400 - ASUS48N-E
GeForce7300GT
Xubuntu Gutsy