From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2005-05-07T22:34:05+09:00
Subject: Re: RCRs that can be implemented in Ruby (was: Re: Prove me Wrong! Re: RCR 303: nil should accept missing methods)

Hi,

In message "Re: RCRs that can be implemented in Ruby (was: Re: Prove me Wrong! Re: RCR 303: nil should accept missing methods)"
    on Sat, 7 May 2005 21:46:33 +0900, "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:

|> Either way, I still agree with Eric, there is no reason for this to be an RCR 
|> since the whole thing is 5 simple lines of ruby that any user can selectively 
|> use as they see fit. If someone wants to use it, they require a very small 
|> file. If they don't want to use it, they don't do anything special.
|
|I'm a little puzzled by this (the idea that changes that can be
|implemented in Ruby should not be RCRs), which I hadn't heard before
|Eric's post, but which seems to be taking Seattle by storm :-)

There's no such official rule for RCRs; actually there's no official
rule for RCRs at all.  But if the idea can be easily implemented in
pure Ruby, one can release it to the public before submitting an RCR
to prove its usefulness by real experiences.  Besides that, if
everyone submit every idea popped in his mind, whole RCR process would
overflow.  Eric (and Ryan) might think of such case.

							matz.