On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 03:56:47AM +0900, Austin Ziegler muttered...
: On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 03:06:20 +0900, Chris Ross wrote:
: > On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 02:26:15AM +0900, Ian Macdonald muttered...
: [...]
: >> If using glibc makes sense in the cases that it's available, why
: >> would you not want to do so in such cases?
: [...]
: > The most stright forward way is to provide a general solution to
: > the general problem and then start worrying about the corner cases
: > that only a fraction of the users have issues with. And if you
: > want tight control over buffering [as matz stated he does] the
: > easiest way to do it is to implement it himself touching the real
: > world as little as possible until necessary [eg. flushing that
: > buffer].
: 
: Would it not be possible to make it something that is a compile-time
: option, though? That is, by default, Ruby compiles with the default
: implementation, but a configure/compile-option can cause it to use
: glibc implementations instead?

Yes completely possible. But that is what I am saying matz wants to 
avoid. Currently if there is a bug three main questions are asked,
"what version of ruby, what os and what architecture". Those questions
would then be added to if it's a compile time option "what flags where 
used, what versions of the libraries, what optimisations were compiled
in", and so on, and very quickly it becomes an exponential problem to
solve in terms of inital complexity, personaly i'd rather matx worked on 
implementing new and useful stuff rather than tracking down some conrer 
case that only occurs on alpha archtecture under unix with library 
version x and so on. But once again, just my 2 pence,

Regards,

Chris
-- 
Chris Ross (boris)      chris / darkrock.co.uk |         ctr / ferite.org
                   http://www.darkrock.co.uk |  http://www.ferite.org
        "I dont suffer from insanity - I enjoy every minute of it..."