The Ruby Book errata concerns editions earlier than either the Xerox I
have or the electronic file. So, unfortunately, the errata on
www.ruby-lang.org do not apply in this case.

I thought, perhaps, that by looking at the two versions I quoted, it
would be possible for someone experienced in Ruby to determine a)
which was the correct version, based on the quoted content of the two
versions, or b) whether both versions are incorrect, or c) whether
neither version is incorrect. (Aside: Yes, this is an application of
the famous Madhyamika Buddhist 'tetralemma', an improvement on the
more mundane dilemma, i.e. all the following are false: it is, it is
not, it both is and is not, it neither is nor is not :)

Anyway, there are a number of other cases like this --- the electronic
text differs from the printed book --- and it would help a great deal
to know which text I should consider authoritive. (Of course the
people who gave me this should know, but the fact is they don't.)

Anyway, the agent thought that the electronic version was the same as
the Xerox of the printed version. But I've found that is not so. And I
was wondering, the text quoted is one example, which text I should
consider definitive.

Sorry to intrude with stuff. If I had another option, I wouldn't
bother you.

Jon






-- 
Jon Babcock <jon / kanji.com>