> >On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Benjamin J. Tilly wrote:

> >> - Perl's tie is being done in Ruby - right.  In Perl there is
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Well, I haven't seen the "tie" feature in Ruby. You can't just call Ruby's
> >syntax an implementation of "tie".
> I did not say that it was done.

Which in theory should teach me to read emails more attentively!!!

> it will be better than what Perl has because you are
> able to work with the language to extend it rather than
> fighting the syntax.

I agree.

> >The Ruby community's standard lie

This line is but a sign that I drink way too much coffee.

> Sure, you can boil down everything that you do to a small
> number of simple operations.  If existing Ruby code only used
> the same limited operations, then matching the interface
> would be easy.  But the interface exists because it is used,
> and the syntactic sugar has value.
> >But one thing MetaRuby can't do yet is make the delusions go away. I plan
> >to add that feature around version 1.618034, and clearly I'm not there
> >yet.
> Perhaps a few more of these rants will help?

Sorry, I reached (busted) my quota of rants for this semester already. But
your email was well-written. 

matju