From: "T. Onoma" <transami@...>
Date: 2003-11-25T18:51:00+09:00
Subject: Re: raise unless RUBY_VERSION[%r/^\s*\d+\.\d+/o].to_f >= 1.8

On Tuesday 25 November 2003 10:07 am, Robert Klemme wrote:
> "T. Onoma" <transami@runbox.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:200311250002.09555.transami@runbox.com...
>
> > On Tuesday 25 November 2003 08:07 am, daz wrote:
> > > RUBY_VERSION = "1.8.1"
> > > p  RUBY_VERSION >= "1.8"  #-> true
> > > RUBY_VERSION = "1.10.1"
> > > p  RUBY_VERSION >= "1.8"  #-> false
> > >
> > > .... but MINOR 10 would upset RUBY_VERSION_CODE (in version.h)
> > > which, incidentally, would be a useful global (eventually).
> > >
> > > It might take the pressure off Matz if 1.9 didn't have to be
> > > followed by 2.0 tho' :-)
> > >
> > > > unless someone can think of a reason not to - i'll take it!
> > >
> > > Um, because it's crufty (looks like we can't tell the difference
> > > between Numeric and String sorting sequence - even though I've
> > > seen it used a lot in Ruby).
> >
> > Any one think Ruby needs a Tuple class?
>
> It's already there: Array.

No,

  class Tuple < Array
    include Comparable
  end

  class Array
    def to_t
      return Tuple.new(self)
    end
  end

Now is has a Tuple. Try,

  ruby_version = RUBY_VERSION.split('.').collect { |i| i.to_i }.to_t

  puts ruby_version
  puts ruby_version >= [1,7,1]
  puts ruby_version >= [1,8]
  puts ruby_version >= [1,8,1]
  puts ruby_version >= [1,10]

Although a Tuple  a.b.c ...  literal would look better.

-t0