From: Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...>
Date: 2005-04-22T01:44:32+09:00
Subject: Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)"
>     on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:04:56 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> writes:
> 
> |You find my 3 questions within the original message of this thread.
> |Could you please have the courtesy to reply there?
> 
>>* Who has written the "ri Class" documentation?
> 
> I wrote the original figure.  The documentation is not by me, but by
> the English doc team members.

where can I find a list of the english doc team members?

I would like to know who is responsible for this text.

>>* Can I expect an apology for this false documentation?
> 
> I'm not sure how much useful an apology can be, but you can.  

you are not the direct responsible (although you should have verified 
this critical documentation part).

> I feel sorry that you've misunderstood.

If you really feel sorry, than you should possibly reply to my initial 
message and comment what i've worked-out within the last 2 weeks.

As you see, the community has problems to accept a very simple fact:

the "ri Class" documentation is defective.

> |I don't know "David Alan Black".
> |
> |But: not he should 'pursuade' you to add such a method.
> |
> |Rationality should do.
> 
> You don't have to worry about him to force me to add it without
> rationality.

I don't worry about this.

You should trust your userbase.

And let them decide the power which they will use (or abuse).

> 							matz.

..

-- 
http://lazaridis.com