On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter<[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Ola Bini<[email protected]> wrote: >> Yep, I want a large debate on this. I just didn't want to make the choice >> without the debate! > > Eeesh, big spec. > > Well I suppose that since ruby-core has acknowledged it and fixed it > in Ruby 1.9.1, we should just go ahead with a fix for it on our end. > We'll also want it to be fixed for our own 1.9 mode, after all. > > So...I vote fix.
Me too....It is possible someone depends on this behavior, but if 1.9 already changed these semantics then we really need to see anything in the wild that would break because of this fix (to care enough to emulate 1.8 behavior). Even then we can probably point out the fragility of their library moving forward if they leave it as it is...It will clearly break when they try to run it on 1.9. -Tom -- blog: http://blog.enebo.com twitter: tom_enebo mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
