From: "neleai@..." <neleai@...>
Date: 2006-09-18T20:11:15+09:00
Subject: Re: the future of Ruby


Devin Mullins wrote:
> Francis Cianfrocca wrote:
> > On the other hand, Ruby (like
> > Java) now produces major revs so infrequently that it's not a terribly
> > large problem. For all ends and intents, I consider Ruby to be a
> > stable language.
> Also, once you find an incompatibility, you can write code that works in
> both versions. Simple example from Rails:
>    unless defined? instance_exec # 1.9
>      def instance_exec(*arguments, &block)
>        block.bind(self)[*arguments]
>      end
>    end
> (Runtime #ifdef, if you will.) So you shouldn't need to maintain
> multiple versions of the code.
>
> Devin
There is problem with extensions.
Fixing is easy but boring because it can't be fully automatized.
replace RARRAY(ary)->ptr with RARRAY_PTR(ary)
(could be automatic by hacking C parser)
character is now string so find functions which deal with chars and
rewrite it.
(Finding is easy because it causes TypeError)
What else I forget?