From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2006-08-28T01:55:10+09:00
Subject: Re: rubyinline


Eero Saynatkari wrote:
> Trans wrote:
> > Marshall T. Vandegrift wrote:
> >> You could #eval the code in the subprocess.  That seems like an easy (if
> >> slightly kludgey) way to get the benefits of both methods.
> >
> > Nice! I'll try that!
> >
> > Just the sort of creative answer I hoping for. Thanks Marshall.
>
> Marshall's solution should be just fine--however,
> I wanted to mention something a bit extraneous: the
> library name 'rubyinline' can easily be confused with
> the existing Inline libs.
>
> I understand that this is a generalised version, but I
> would still recommend using the standard test format by
> naming the libs Test::Inline and reside in test/inline.
>
> Not sure what to call it if you want to designate it as
> separate from testing--'runcomments', 'comments2ruby' or
> something maybe? :)

Understood. I just haven't found a new name I like yet. It was called
'rubytest' but now that it is generalized and can be used for more than
just unit tests, I'm even less sure what to name it. I prefer the
command start with 'ruby___' though because it is really just the ruby
interpretor, but running the script from a different "viewpoint" so to
speak.

T.