On Feb 2, 2005, at 5:15 AM, Benedikt Huber wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:40:39 +0900, Alexander Kellett wrote:
>
> I understood this point. So RubyC would be a better name (i.e. a high
> level description language for C with automatic type inference). If
> this is the _main_ goal, i can see some benefits. Also, you would
> have to supply some low-level IO mechanism if you want to write e.g.
> hardware related extensions.

I'm not going to play semantics here. I don't see any real distinction 
between "RubyC" and "Ruby2C" so I'm just going to leave it up in the 
air as a moot point. I will point out that in your own previous email, 
you referred to the C API in ruby as "ruby C". Regardless, the project 
has been named and I think it is going to stay that way.

--
ryand-ruby / zenspider.com - http://blog.zenspider.com/
http://rubyforge.org/projects/ruby2c/
http://rubyforge.org/projects/parsetree/