From: "David A. Black" Date: 2005-05-07T22:53:08+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 -- On Sat, 7 May 2005, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > 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" 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. Yes, although there are cases (core changes, mostly) where people might be reluctant to use it in production code. > Besides that, if > everyone submit every idea popped in his mind, whole RCR process would > overflow. Eric (and Ryan) might think of such case. Oh, believe me, I'm not in favor of that :-) That's why I like RCRchive: it discourages casual RCRs, and the "I've used Ruby for five minutes and here's what should be changed" type, by insisting on full explanation and rationale and, where possible, implementation. (At least it *tries* to discourage them.... :-) David -- David A. Black dblack@wobblini.net