Should have gone to the list...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kevin Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:17 AM Subject: Re: Re-architecting ruby libraries To: Kevin Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Kevin Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ruby_styling or ruby_lib_namespacing? The latter appears to be ahead of the > former by a few commits. They're related. I'd look at both. >> Please _do_ submit tests. Please _do_ submit good rdoc. Please _do_ >> feel free to toss patches onto JIRA improving the state of the Ruby >> bindings, but I'm unlikely to support a rewrite from scratch. There's >> too many people running this code to simply ignore them. This _can_ be >> done in a backwards compatible way, as is being done in the >> ruby_styling branch. > > Ok, I will try to do it this way. But it seems that to not break anything, > you can't change any API. How are you defining not breaking anything? Look at the deprecate! method I wrote. It's still in flux, but I think it's the right way to go about it. We spew a warning message about it being deprecated, and delegates to the new api. We can provide the old method names while moving to the new that way. Class renamings/splits can happen with constant remapping a la: module Foo class Bar end end TBar = Foo::Bar -- Kevin Clark http://glu.ttono.us -- Kevin Clark http://glu.ttono.us
