On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 21:55 +0900, Matt Mower wrote:
> That seems sensible.  Of course it would require that RUBY_PLATFORM
> expose it as FreeVMS.

It occurs to me that there is also this project to consider, and it is
related to your question about whether cygwin should be reported as
"unix" or not:

http://gnv.sourceforge.net/

Depending on how "UNIX-like" GNV becomes, it is conceivable that a
GNV-based Ruby on VMS might be analogous to the cygwin/win32 situation.
Would this ruby then be OS=vms, IMPL=gnv?  OS=unix, IMPL=gnv?  OS=gnv,
IMP=gnv?

My gut feeling is that enough of the ugly details* of VMS would show
through any implementation that we should never say OS=unix.  And it
seems strange to me to say OS=gnv (just as it seems strange to me to say
OS=cygwin).  Anyway, whatever you decide about cygwin, I think the
choice for vms/gnv should be consistent with that decision.**

Ben
* Although beauty is in the eye of the beholder :)
** Then again, you could justifiably argue that all this talk of
hypothetical alternate implementations of VMS Ruby when we barely have
one implementation today is so much in the realm of fantasy as to be
entirely irrelevant.