bdelmee / advalvas.be (Bernard Delm?e) writes:

> > I'm still surprised at the results of the poll.
> 
> Sigh...so am I. I may have missed posts, but I don't remember 
> any positive evidence having been displayed against cygwin;
> but then it's been massively outvoted. I still feel we switch
> for no good reason to the slowest windows interpreter.

In fairness, people have been having problems (like the connect
timeout problem) with cygwin. However, I think that we're in the
process of leaving the frying pan for the fire.

However, it is possible that we'll be maintaining two installers-one
Cygwin, and the other MsWin32.

> But that's settled now. So my question then, is: "why another
> MSVC-based package?" Wouldn't the ActiveScriptRuby one fit the bill?
> (www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-PaloAlto/9251/ruby/main.html)
> Maybe another, optional "pragmatic goodies" package with say ri and
> fox would suffice and nicely complement it, no?

Perhaps, although the name is probably offputting to some people.


On a totally different subject, I decided last night to bypass the
socket problem and alter the code in the book to get it to compile. As
a result I'm now working on getting your changes integrated into the
full build. I think there's one last issue (the <chapter> tags weren't
being recognized by the contents generator because they now have a
ref= attribute), so I'll probably post something fairly soon.

Regards


Dave