On 26 Aug 2010, at 15:03, Joseph E. Savard wrote:

> I would follow the language.  Issues with other coders and such will =
arise..

The language I was trying to follow was English, but there you go... :)


On 26 Aug 2010, at 14:49, Piotr Szotkowski wrote:

> Note that it doesn=92t make other code (notably,
> BasicObject.new) call #initialise all of a sudden, which is probably
> what you=92d rather have, innit?

That was the one I was going for. Ah well.


Thanks both for your input. I suppose my only recourse now is to start =
hacking on the Ruby source and get my patch submitted in time for Ruby =
2.0 :)


Regards,
Iain