[#7055] More on VC++ 2005 — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>

Okay. I've got Ruby compiling. I'm attempting to get everything in

17 messages 2006/01/05
[#7058] Re: More on VC++ 2005 — nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@...> 2006/01/06

Hi,

[#7084] mathn: ugly warnings — hadmut@... (Hadmut Danisch)

Hi,

22 messages 2006/01/10
[#7097] Re: mathn: ugly warnings — Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...> 2006/01/10

Hadmut Danisch wrote:

[#7098] Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/10

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#7118] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/12

*Dean Wampler *<deanwampler gmail.com> writes:

[#7226] Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>

Hello,

23 messages 2006/01/28
[#7228] Re: Question about massive API changes — Caleb Tennis <caleb@...> 2006/01/28

>

Re: Question about massive API changes

From: mathew <meta@...>
Date: 2006-01-31 19:44:07 UTC
List: ruby-core #7267
Sean E. Russell wrote:
> On Sunday 29 January 2006 15:56, mathew wrote:
>   
>> Is there some reason why a thin API facade is impossible? You wouldn't
>> need to make it high performance.
>>     
>
> What do you mean by an API facade?
>   

Something that accepts calls via the old API, and translates them into 
appropriate calls into the new API.

>> Perl is another example of the "sounds good, throw it in" approach to
>>     
>
> You'll notice that none of the languages you've mentioned have built-in 
> support for versioned libraries.  It isn't quite clear to me why this keeps 
> getting missed in language design, especially in the younger languages.

Having seen the response to suggestions of incorporating versioning and 
RubyGems into Ruby, I think I could hazard a guess...


mathew

In This Thread