[#5218] Ruby Book Eng tl, ch1 question — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

13 messages 2000/10/02

[#5404] Object.foo, setters and so on — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>

OK, here is what I think I know.

14 messages 2000/10/11

[#5425] Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

18 messages 2000/10/11
[#5427] RE: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — OZAWA -Crouton- Sakuro <crouton@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 03:49:46 +0900,

[#5429] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...> 2000/10/11

Thanks for the input.

[#5432] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:53:41 +0900,

[#5516] Re: Some newbye question — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "D" == Davide Marchignoli <marchign@di.unipi.it> writes:

80 messages 2000/10/13
[#5531] Re: Some newbye question — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2000/10/14

Hi,

[#5544] Re: Some newbye question — Davide Marchignoli <marchign@...> 2000/10/15

On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#5576] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/10/16

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

[#5617] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...> 2000/10/16

Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> wrote:

[#5705] Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>

There has been discussion on this list/group from time to time about

16 messages 2000/10/20
[#5712] Re: Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@...> 2000/10/20

Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:

[#5882] [RFC] Towards a new synchronisation primitive — hipster <hipster@...4all.nl>

Hello fellow rubyists,

21 messages 2000/10/26

[ruby-talk:5620] Re: [RRFC] versioning revisited

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-10-17 02:08:34 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5620
hipster <hipster@xs4all.nl> writes:

> 
> 1. Version check syntax
> 
> ruby version
>   require "1.6"               # at least 1.6
> 
> probably generalised into:
>   require "ruby 1.6"          # at least 1.6
>   require "ruby == 1.6.1"     # exactly 1.6.1

To make this more orthogonal, how about generalizing the context. Add
a 'with' qualifier to 'require' which takes an arbitrary
expression. That expression is evaluated within the context of the
module just loaded, so you could write:


    fred.rb:
        version = 4.3
        status = "debug"
        # module stuff..

    dave.rb

        require "fred" with version > 4 && status != "debug"

that gives us an interesting way to introduce metadata.

Then, how about extending require again, so that if the first match
that it finds doesn't satisfy the 'with', it keeps searching, so that
we can have multiple libraries in the search path, with programs being 
able to choose which ones they like?

Dave

In This Thread