Hi,

On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:25:46 GMT, David Alan Black wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 02:30, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> > How would you like if a review of a new version of Ruby said this:
> > 
> > 	We experienced non-complete backward compatibility with this
> > 	version, at least.  Our old programs just stopped working, though
[...]
> Ummm, yes: there is (self-evidently) a backward compatibility issue.
> But matz [...] he's on top of the compatibility question :-)

I agree that writing such a long story about such a trivial thing was not
very bright.  I apologize to matz and all for wasting their time.

> > > It's not mandatory -- you can always use a regex (or even
> > > Regexp.new(s) :-)  -- so allowing strings (without auto-conversion to
> > > regex) doesn't take away any functionality.
> > 
> > I think that arguments like this one lead to non-elegant non-readable
> > languages.

> That's a bit of a conversation-stopper... :-)
> But anyway: I'm not sure what's non-readable about string.split("blah")
> where "blah" is a string.

:-)  Well, it's impossible to disagree :-)
You're right and I apologize again.

> I'd actually tend to argue that having to recognize "blah" as
> a regex (despite the presence of a string constructor) is a
> readability hurdle.

I agree.  This variant is out of question, it even wasn't in Matz's
(a) (b) (c) (d) list.

Stepan