From: Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
Date: 2008-04-05T07:23:27+09:00
Subject: Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Eleanor McHugh
<eleanor@games-with-brains.com> wrote:
>
>  I think this over-complicates matters. Why not use something along the
> lines of:
>
>  FEATURES.includes?(:windows_vista)
>  FEATURES.includes?(:fork, :c_extensions)
>
>

I agree that FeatureSet:: can be too verbose and can get a bit messy
over time, but :windows_vista don't tell me nothing, :fork alone
neither.

Again, I think we are going beyond the idea of matz about
RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION or RUBY_ENGINE functionality and dealing with
something that should be taked in consideration in core and not by
extended features like this.

Example: fork shouldn't be available / defined on platforms it doesn't
support, but instead it just raises an exception on Windows.

Is known that RUBY_PLATFORM don't proivde enough information for users
to determine which functionality will use at runtime, but again, what
is the original intention of RUBY_ENGINE/RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION or
RUBY_FEATURES?

It is just exposes differences of features and implementations like
JRuby and Rubinius about native threads and continuations, or is just
a fancy label to to tag and serve as statistical purposes?

-- 
Luis Lavena
Multimedia systems
-
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams