From: Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...>
Date: 2006-09-19T06:56:24+09:00
Subject: Re: the future of Ruby

Devin Mullins <twifkak@comcast.net> writes:

> 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.

OT: I must be dumb, but if it was that easy, why did Mauricio
Fernandez need almost a page of code to produce a good instance_exec?

> Devin

-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen@gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org