Daniel DeLorme wrote:
> Since this is open to interpretation, I would suggest like David that 
> the behavior should remain backward compatible. Besides, it's always 
> possible to test for discrete membership by converting to enum.

Ruby 1.9.0 has been clearly described as a work in progress...it's a 
development release, and functionality changes that are deemed to be 
behavioral regressions should most definitely be fixed.

Part of the peril of releasing any book based on 1.9.0 is that there 
simply *are* going to be changes. That's just how it is. Release errata 
or new editions, but the truth of the matter is that 1.9.0 has never 
been set in stone.

If it seems like this should be changed, it should be changed. We can't 
claim that just because it went out in a development release that it's 
somehow a backward-incompatible change to fix it.

- Charlie