[#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:5625] Re: [RRFC] versioning revisited

From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2000-10-17 04:29:22 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5625
Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:5620] Re: [RRFC] versioning revisited"
    on 00/10/17, Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> writes:

|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.

Are you going to make require a keyword?

|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?

What do you think is a good idea to resolve version number mismatch?
For example:

  my program requires libraries cgi and database
    cgi requires marshal 1.4 or later
    database requires marshal 1.2

Just crash?  Note I didn't say this is a serious problem.

							matz.

In This Thread

Prev Next