On Mar 26, 2008, at 5:10 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
> I'm not saying I agree with the current behavior.

Then now's the time to change it, I'd say...

> This would have been something to fix during the lead-up to 1.9.0  
> when cover? was being introduced.  But 1.9.0 has been released, and  
> the Ruby 1.9 API is, in theory, frozen. In practice, of course,  
> changes are still being made, but the bar is presumably much higher  
> now.

We've added two entire classes to the built-in list since the 1.9.0  
release, and added many, many methods to array, string, and so on, so  
I don't think that argument really holds. We should do what's right  
for the language _before_ 1.9 is truly frozen (if that ever happens).  
And, as authors, we accept that our some of our descriptions will  
gradually become incorrect (as happened to the second edition of the  
PickAxe when the member? change was made in 1.8.6. The sky didn't fall  
then, and the sky won't fall now.) We all agree (I think) that member?  
is not currently doing what its name promises, and fixing it now is a  
lot easier than fixing it later.


Cheers


Dave