Various Topics on Ruby

..brie.. ..n..

Hi gurus and nubys,

I was recently noticed of the existence of RCR65 that suggested
that the I/O functionality could be made in smaller piece instead of
the only IO monolith .

But it seems that the RCR somewhat disappeared, it's not been ported
to RCRchive.net, and rubygarden.org gives a blank page for it.

Yet, it can be retrieved via the Wayback Machine:
http://web.archive.org/web/200306080...le.php?sid=179
and it seem matz would have agreed with it, given a proper design.

It would be nice if the author could repost it,imo.

..v.. .. ..a..

Hi --

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, gabriele renzi wrote:

> Hi gurus and nubys,
>
> I was recently noticed of the existence of RCR65 that suggested
> that the I/O functionality could be made in smaller piece instead of
> the only IO monolith .
>
> But it seems that the RCR somewhat disappeared, it's not been ported
> to RCRchive.net, and rubygarden.org gives a blank page for it.

It is actually on RCRchive, among the legacy rejected RCRs
(http://www.rcrchive.net/rgarchive/rejected.html#rcr65). (I haven't
read through all the discussion, so I'm not sure of the reason for
rejection or whether a modified version might be accepted.)


David

--
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net

..th.. ..ho..

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:42:42 +0900, "David A. Black"
<dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:

This is the final sentence in the RCR65

--------------------------
Reason for rejection
IO is an IO is an IO. We need to extract Stream behavior first.
----------------------------

makes sense, but it doesn't look that anything on the Stream thing is
done in the meantime.

..brie.. ..n..

il Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:42:42 +0900, "David A. Black"
<dblack@wobblini.net> ha scritto::


>It is actually on RCRchive, among the legacy rejected RCRs
>(http://www.rcrchive.net/rgarchive/rejected.html#rcr65).

Oops. Sorry for the noise