On 2008-06-19 06:10 +0900 (Thu), Brian Ford wrote:

> On Jun 18, 12:43¢®pm, Curt Sampson <c... / cynic.net> wrote:
> > On 2008-06-19 04:08 +0900 (Thu), Brian Ford wrote:
> >
> > > ...any compatible version of the *Ruby language*, not just on an
> >
> > Is it just me, or does there seem to be some confusion here between the
> > Ruby language and the Ruby libraries?
> ...
> Restricting "language" to mean "syntax and grammar" is useless in this
> context.

Well, you did say "language" and put it in boldface. I took that to mean
you were particularly distinguishing the language from the libraries. If
you just say, "Ruby", people will get what you mean just fine, I'm sure.
I would have.

Anyway, if you're depending on particular buggy behaviour, take
advantage of Ruby's amazing ease of modifying the standard libraries and
include a version with the bug in your program. I do this all the time,
though usually the other way around (including a non-buggy routine to
let a program run on an older, buggier set of libraries.)

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson       <cjs / starling-software.com>        +81 90 7737 2974   
Mobile sites and software consulting: http://www.starling-software.com