On 6/15/06, ara.t.howard / noaa.gov <ara.t.howard / noaa.gov> wrote:
>
> i am in the minority, but it bothers me.  don't get me wrong, i like the
> interface - but the semantics seem odd.
>
Well, I agree with you on both counts - I like your semantics and
Daniel's interface. I certainly think you're right to raise the
scoping issues of this implementation in 1.8.

Luckily, it seems we can have our cake and eat it with ruby 1.9! :)

And if people use Daniel's implementation as a shim for 1.8, we now
have a clear explanation of the differences between this and what will
eventually be the official behaviour.

Gotta love this list.

Regards,
Sean