I would favor your RCR. I think no code will be broken because of the
new behavior.

Michel.

On 9/10/05, Gavin Kistner <gavin / refinery.com> wrote:
> I understand the theoretical argument for backwards-compatibility.
> Have you (dear reader) personally ever used #puts or #print inside an
> ERB template for debugging output that you didn't want included in
> the result? I know I haven't, but I accept that I'm a sample size of
> one. If backwards compatibility is truly an issue (and this RCR were
> accepted) then I suppose it would have to be something like an option
> to the constructor. (But bleah, I really want it to just work,
> without having to write "ERB.new( foo, nil, '%', nil, true )".)