On Thursday, January 15, 2004, 5:59:40 AM, Dave wrote:

>>  Especially if you want a version for 1.8, if we all just send them
>> cheques for it before its printed can they but create it?

> I've got the class and module library section all updated, but I'm 
> struggling knowing what to do with the standard library. In 1.8 it's
> now enormous, and documenting it all at the same level of detail as the
> 1.6 book does would be a gigantic task. Would people be upset if any
> new version of the book had a more synoptic overview of the library 
> (things like yaml, opensll, etc)

I think that's a sensible approach for you.  The 1.6 standard library
contained "things you expect a scripting language to have" (network,
CGI, date manipulation, file manipulation, some maths, some ADTs,
etc.), and it made sense to document them rigorously.

In 1.8, however, several formerly-third-party libraries (rexml,
testunit, yaml, soap4r, etc.) have been included simply for ease of
distribution.  Everyone welcomes them, but IMO they do not form such a
core part of Ruby as, say "singleton".  Being more like third-party
libraries, the onus still falls on the author (and helpers) to
document them.

As an author on the language, you should certainly make users aware of
the batteries that are included, but you shouldn't need to "do it
all".

Cheers,
Gavin