From: Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>
Date: 2009-02-16T09:13:38+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:22172] Re: A short memorandum (Re: 1.8.7 Specifics)

Eero Saynatkari wrote:
> I would prefer having to `require "gc"` for the insulation. Only
> applying to the API, of course: I see no reason to require people
> to specifically activate the GC functionality itself.

I'd find that totally satisfactory too. The implication there would be 
that if you're pulling in the "gc" extension, you're asking for access 
to deeper and possibly (probably) implementation-specific GC methods. It 
would be similar to requiring the 'jruby' module in JRuby to get access 
to JRuby-specific things, or 'java' to access Java libraries in an 
impl-specific way (ok, both are JRuby-only, but the latter could use rjb 
or something simiar).

> On the other hand, the GC module already exists: should it be
> moved out of core altogether?

I'd advocate that if it weren't a breaking change. What's there kinda 
needs to stay there, but anything new, especially bits that have no 
applicability to other GCs, could easily be put in a 'gc' library/extension.

- Charlie