On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 04:05:05AM +0900, Daniel Berger wrote:
> On Mar 8, 11:42 am, Chad Perrin <per... / apotheon.com> wrote:
> 
> > -- or just create mutant relatives of
> > the Ruby core classes?
> 
> I've done that already to some extent with Win32Utils. But, to get
> Unicode support, I would effectively have to redefine *every* method.

Ouch.  Point taken.

Then again . . . you'd have to do that anyway, with a fork.  Hmm.  Can't
win for losing.


> 
> But you're forgetting the stdlib alterations.
> 
> Not to worry, though. I'm not really going to pursue it. Not without
> VC funding, anyway. :)

Oh, I don't think I have anything to fear from a Windows-only fork --
I'm not worried.  I'm pretty sure Ruby, being portable where yours would
not and likely to provide better Unicode support than yours would by the
time you got yours into release-worthy status, wouldn't hurt any for the
competition.  Besides, if all you forked was the implementation and
syntactic details that relate to platform-specificity, I'm pretty sure
the core Ruby would only benefit from the existence of such a close
relative.

. . . especially if it was open source, so that each could benefit from
the development of the other.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
This sig for rent:  a Signify v1.14 production from http://www.debian.org/