wrote: > > I suspect that it isn't. I, for one, want to see as few libraries that > > are doing something like: > > > > case RUBY_ENGINE > > when 'mri' > > when 'jruby' > > ... > > end > > Oh I'm favor of it--I would however suggest that allowing for > "docstrings" and/or parse trees of methods would be even more powerful > overall :) > > Stay well. > -=R > > -- Yehuda Katz Developer | Engine Yard (ph) 718.877.1325 ------=_Part_4206_29560565.1226386692902 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Lots of responses here.

1) I'd be in favor of an object-based API. I'll probably post tomorrow with some thoughts on that. I only provided the tuple-based API because already have it in all impls (except 1.9) and it already works.

2) I agree that there are potentially more powerful things that we *could* do. However, those things would take a lot of time to get right. This feature is simple and limited enough to be definitely supportable across implementations, and possible to nail down quickly and efficiently.

What I specifically would like to avoid is a very long discussion about trying to get a perfect, large API to handle a superset of these features (such as full support for a locked-down AST), when the simple version would be extremely helpful all on its own.

Hope that made sense,

-- Yehuda

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@gmail.com> wrote:

> I suspect that it isn't. I, for one, want to see as few libraries that
> are doing something like:
>
> case RUBY_ENGINE
> when 'mri'
> when 'jruby'
> ...
> end

Oh I'm favor of it--I would however suggest that allowing for
"docstrings" and/or parse trees of methods would be even more powerful
overall :)

Stay well.
-=R

--
Yehuda Katz
Developer | Engine Yard
(ph) 718.877.1325

------=_Part_4206_29560565.1226386692902--