[#4766] Wiki — "Glen Stampoultzis" <trinexus@...>

21 messages 2000/09/04
[#4768] RE: Wiki — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...> 2000/09/04

Hi, Glen,

[#4783] Re: Wiki — Masatoshi SEKI <m_seki@...> 2000/09/04

[#4785] Re: Wiki — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2000/09/05

Howdy,

[#4883] Re-binding a block — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

16 messages 2000/09/12

[#4930] Perl 6 rumblings -- RFC 225 (v1) Data: Superpositions — Conrad Schneiker <schneik@...>

Hi,

11 messages 2000/09/15

[#4936] Ruby Book Eng. translation editor's questions — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

20 messages 2000/09/16

[#5045] Proposal: Add constants to Math — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

15 messages 2000/09/21

[#5077] Crazy idea? infix method calls — hal9000@...

This is a generalization of the "in" operator idea which I

17 messages 2000/09/22

[#5157] Compile Problem with 1.6.1 — Scott Billings <aerogems@...>

When I try to compile Ruby 1.6.1, I get the following error:

15 messages 2000/09/27

[ruby-talk:4763] Re: Invoking an extension after compilation

From: foo <matju@...>
Date: 2000-09-04 01:58:51 UTC
List: ruby-talk #4763
> In message "[ruby-talk:4646] Re: Invoking an extension after compilation"
>     on 00/08/30, foo <matju@cam.org> writes:
> |Shouldn't read and eval be two separate operations like in lisp?  this
> |would simplify the task of writing compilers / optimizers / browsers /
> |listeners for ruby.
> I think it requires standard internal structure (like S-expression for
> Lisp).  Someday Ruby will mature enough to determine its best suited
> internal structure.

I think the goal for a 2.0 version could be this. what do you think?
or does it look more like a 3.0 feature ?

matju



In This Thread