[#2367] Standard libraries — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

From ruby-dev summary:

60 messages 2004/02/11

[#2397] PATCH: deprecate cgi-lib, getopts, importenv, parsearg from standard library — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>

Index: cgi-lib.rb

15 messages 2004/02/12

[#2465] PATCH: OpenStruct#initialize to yield self — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>

This is a common approach I use to object initialization; I don't know

24 messages 2004/02/19

Re: Standard libraries

From: "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2004-02-12 05:16:51 UTC
List: ruby-core #2385
[NaHi:]
>> > RDoc style is a must?  I don't like documentation buried within a
>> source code (code duplication for me).
>>
>> RDoc is the standard way to document standard library files.
>
> In Japanese 1.4/1.6 document, "standard library" is distinct
> from "bundled library".  I believe my libraries are just
> "bundled" not "standard" library.
>
> Anyway, regardless of terminology thing, the libs that matz
> authorized should be distinct from the libs just bundled I think.

I understand that a lot of third-party libraries have come into Ruby CVS
in time for 1.8.  My question is: how is a user supposed to know what is
in "standard library" and what is not.  And why should they care?

Matz, what do you think of the distinction between "standard" and
"bundled" now?

(BTW I'm not experienced in Ruby history, so my comments have some naivety.)

Gavin



In This Thread