From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2003-02-13T07:35:24+09:00
Subject: Re: Can we attack the 'not enough libraries' thing straight on?

On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:17:56AM +0900, Michael Shigorin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:10:06AM +0900, Hal E. Fulton wrote:
> > By the way: Much of our TFGF (Taken-For-Granted Functionality)
> > is in the core and the standard libraries rather than in
> > add-ons.
> 
> And is this the call for Ruby Micro Edition, or 2.0, bytecode and
> performance are the prerequisites for that? :)

matz has already said that Ruby without Array, Hash and String (to name
a few) is no longer Ruby. 
 
> Or that's packaging part? (but then, minus-deps come into play)

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

#if _FP_W_TYPE_SIZE < 64
#error "Only stud muffins allowed, schmuck."
#endif
	-- linux/arch/sparc64/quad.c