Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:02776] Re: win OLE / eRuby"
    on 00/05/12, "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro / sarion.co.jp> writes:

|> For web usage, would it be reasonable to only document the eruby 
|> as shipped with mod_ruby, and mention that other, freestanding
|> implementations of eruby exist as well?  Or is there a need to 
|> document them separately?

|We can get only eruby without mod_ruby from RAA.
|http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/raa-list.rhtml?name=eruby
|Are there guys using eruby not in mod_ruby environment?
|
|Regarding freestanding implementations of eRuby, I have no idea...
|matz?

I think it's good to document them separately.  README.en in eruby
distribution has no information about invoking it.

To use as a cgi, see [ruby-talk:02662].  Also you can use it as a
filter.  

  % eruby FILENAME > PROCESSED

							matz.