AT WED, 28 MAY 2008 06:04:56 +0900,
SURAJ N. KURAPATI WROTE:
> ON MAY 25, 8:47 PM, "AKINORI MUSHA"
<K... IDAEMONS.ORG> WROTE:
> > THE NEW VERSION OF RUBY INCLUDES MANY BUG FIXES,
LOTS OF FEATURE
> > ENHANCEMENTS AND SOME PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS
SINCE 1.8.6 WHILE
> > MAINTAINING STABILITY AND BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY
WITH THE PREVIOUS
> > RELEASE TO A HIGH DEGREE, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE
ONGOING EFFORTS THAT NEED
> > TO BE DONE TOWARD ADOPTING RUBYSPEC.
>
> IS THE BASICOBJECT CLASS (FROM RUBY 1.9) PLANNED TO BE
BACK-PORTED TO
> RUBY 1.8.X?
I'M AFRAID IT IS A BIT TOO RADICAL TO CHANGE CLASS HIERARCHY
(OR
TOPOLOGY, RATHER) IN THE MIDDLE OF 1.8. IT WOULD BREAK
CERTAIN KINDS
OF DEVELOPMENT TOOLS AND RUNTIME ENVIRONMENT (IDE/RAD
TOOLS,
SQUEAK-LIKE ENVIRONMENT, ETC.).
> ALSO, WILL OPENSTRUCT DERIVE FROM BASICOBJECT? SO THAT
WE NO LONGER
> NEED TO MANUALLY UNDEF TYPE AND ID TO USE THOSE
PROPERTIES IN OUR OPEN
> STRUCTS?
>
> REQUIRE 'OSTRUCT'
>
> CLASS OPENSTRUCT
> UNDEF TYPE IF RESPOND_TO? :TYPE # DEPRECATED IN
RUBY 1.8; REMOVED IN 1.9
> UNDEF ID IF RESPOND_TO? :ID # SAME THING
> END
IT WOULD BE BETTER TO UNDEFINE METHODS WITH COMMON NAMES
INDIVIDUALLY.
LOSING OBJECT_ID, CLASS, DUP, FREEZE, TAINT, ETC. IS
OVERKILL I WOULD
THINK.
--
AKINORI MUSHA / HTTP://AKINORI.ORG/
|