+1 = Definitely need events on interfaces to work again. I haven't tried the more recent builds, but if this is still outstanding, it's a problem for us.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Daniele Alessandri<[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ivan, > > 1. +1 > 2. +1 > 3. +0 > > As for the third point, it is not that I would not like to have a > performance-friendly IronRuby ASAP but I don't see this one as a > binding prerequisite for a 1.0 release, even more so if compared to > the rest. Having said that, OK for performances tweaks, but massive > works on speed to eventually surpass MRI 1.8.6 should be postponed > after IronRuby hits the 1.0 milestone, IMHO. > > PS: equal performance as 1.8.6 != performance friendly, in fact :-) > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:03, Ivan Porto Carrero<[email protected]> wrote: >> For me to be a 1.0 release I'd have to put the following things forward. >> 1. Events on interfaces + abstract classes (a big pull is the testing that >> ruby has to offer and many people now have the DI stuff in place so loads of >> these things are now on interfaces) >> 2. Passing the same amount or more specs from RubySpec as ruby 1.8.6 does. >> 3. Be of equal or better performance as ruby 1.8.6 >> Nice to have: >> compatibility with C# operators etc as this isn't 100% right now. _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
