From: Simon Cozens Date: 2002-10-23T08:38:11+09:00 Subject: Re: RAA.succ? John Carter writes: > Because you can get stuck in a _very_ extended upgrade cycle as soon as > you start sucking on any one package! Even worse the cycle is not > gauranteed to land you with a mutually compatible set of module versions! I've never had that happen. Can you give an example? > What really is needed is a "Batteries Included" ruby distribution that > will have all (reasonably) prime time RAA modules at the latest (mutually > compatible) version. Who defines the best? -- The complex-type shall be a simple-type. ISO 10206:1991 (Extended Pascal)