From: Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@...>
Date: 2005-09-11T00:08:25+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR to modify #puts and #print inside ERB

Hello Gavin,

GK> Proposed RCR:

GK> Modify ERB so that calls to #puts, #print, and #p inside the template
GK> append the resulting string onto the local ERB output variable,  
GK> instead of sending the output to $stdout. #warn would still send to
GK> STDERR (for debug messages seen but kept out of the result string)
GK> and $stdout#<< could also be used.

GK> Does anyone have any compelling reason why I should not make the  
GK> above RCR? I'll flesh it out as a proper RCR, citing the ruby-talk

I will vote against this RCR.

I don't think it is good to change this. I'm quite sure you break
backward compatibility in a lot of places and i don't see any real need
to do this.

If you write a RCR please explain more detailed why you want to do
this and where you see compatibility problems, maybe you can convince
me to accept the RCR.

GK> and would just need to be included. Would a C implementation also be
GK> required for eruby, to keep feature parity between ERB and eruby?

If it is accepted, then yes, please.
There is already the "-%>" problem with eruby vs. ERB and its going to
piss off a lot of people.

-- 
 Best regards,                        emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
 Lothar Scholz                        http://www.ruby-ide.com
 CTO Scriptolutions                   Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's