[ruby-talk:00573] Re: New feature request! :-)

On  6 Aug, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "[ruby-talk:00570] Re: New feature request! :-)"
>     on 99/08/06, [e-mail] <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> |Now I would like to ask you, whether the Ruby license allow us to use
> |Ruby for that purpose? Our company wouldn't allow to publish the
> |sources!!! :-(
> 
> Sure.  You don't have to publish your source.
> 
> See README for the license.  In summary, you can do whatever you want
> with Ruby, except:
> 
>   * distribute modified Ruby pretending my distribution.
>   * distribute binary without pointing where to get source.

But here is a question: I think, I have to code some of the converter
in C or C++ for performance reasons. Perhaps I would have to link them
statically with the Ruby interpreter. Now I have an interpreter, that
is not standard Ruby anymore. I have modified it; extend it!

Now my company would distribute that modified Ruby interpreter (along
with the concerning scripts, of course) without pointing, where to get
the source. Is that also allowed?

Sorry for disturbing you with such $&!$%. I am sure you will agree. I
think, I understand your desires with that license. But I have to
convince my boss here. Not only him, but others too. And they are very
intolerant concerning license questions.

They even don't like free software too much! They want someone to make
responsible for, if anything went wrong. As I have said, that I can
take responsibility for Ruby within my task area, they let me
investigate the license issues. If they are convinced, with the
information I have collected, they will let me go my way .... :-))))))

[...]

> 
> Sometimes it makes sense, for example:
> 
>   def foo
>     print "this is in foo\n"
>     "foo"
>   end

Gotcha! Catched! Arrrgghhhh. I have thought almost half an hour, and
found no example, that would meaningful. Grrmmmmpf :-(

> 
> the method `foo' should print "this is in foo\n", then return the
> string value "foo".

Okay! I see, I see. But we could workarount that using a `;' on the end
of the `print' line, right?

It would fell into the same category as: `s = "a"; s *10'....

Nevertheless, I still like it! :-)

> I agree.  If I can find good way to do compile time string
> concatenation, I'd like to add it, maybe in Ruby 1.5.

That would be nice, thank you! :-))))

> 
>                                                         matz.

\cle