On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 01:29:05AM +0900, Vladimir Sizikov wrote:

> Thanks! So,  I'll remove  the RubySpec test  that enforces  this 1.8
> accidental behavior for all 1.8 level implementations,

Pardon me, but is this really  a good idea?  What happens if different
"Ruby-1.8  compatible"  implementations start  handling  this case  in
different  ways?  You  could  end  up with  Ruby-1.8  code that  looks
portable, but isn't.  It will be bad news if people who develop on MRI
get strange unexpected failures when porting to eg. Maglev.

> since  there  is  no  point  of  enforcing  something  that  is  not
> considered as a intentional behavior.

But maybe there is a  point?  Maybe it's better to enforce consistency
even  though  the "correct"  behaviour  is  the  result of  historical
accident?

Just my 2  cents.  (I'm a long time  lurker but I don't claim  to be a
language expert.)

Regards, 

Jeremy Henty