From: "T. Onoma" <transami@...>
Date: 2003-12-11T06:12:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Ideas for replacing $0==__FILE__

On Wednesday 10 December 2003 09:15 pm, Hal Fulton wrote:
> Are we talking about the same thing? In my scheme, if foo.rb had
> a __TEST___ section, it would be run simply by ruby foo.rb (and
> not run if foo.rb was require'd).
>
> How does that relate to the -t idea (which I don' quite get)?

Kind of like this idea too. Basically what Eric is suggesting is that if you 
have an ruby file like, example.rb:


    # normal code here

  __SHELL__  # like, if $0 = __FILE__

    # shell execution code here

  __TEST__

    # test code here

  __END__

    raw data here


If one were to do
	
  % ruby -t example.rb

it would run the code in the __TEST__ seciton rather than the __SHELL__ 
section.

I can also think of another good section __CGI__ ;)

T.