Hi,

In message "Re: ruby 1.9 eta? continuations in std lib?"
on Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:41:37 +0900, "Giles Bowkett" <gilesb--at--gmail.com> writes:

|Hi - two related questions, is there a reasonable ballpark timeframe
|to expect Ruby 1.9 to become official/stable/production-ready? And am
|I right in thinking that all I have to do to port continuation-based
|code to 1.9 is require continuations from the standard lib?

(Q1) timeframe for 1.9 to be production ready

We don't know. We REALLY hope it comes soon. But there are so many
variables involved. Only good news is 1.9 spec is almost fixed at
the last Christmas.

(Q2) porting continuation based code to 1.9

You have to explicitly require 'continuation' library which is bundled
in the standard distribution. Besides that, all code should work
fine. If not, report it as a bug.

matz.

On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:55 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> (Q1) timeframe for 1.9 to be production ready
>
> We don't know. We REALLY hope it comes soon. But there are so many
> variables involved. Only good news is 1.9 spec is almost fixed at
> the last Christmas.

And, from my own experience testing stuff for PickAxe3, work now with
the maintainers of the Gems you use to make sure they will be
compatible. As it stands now, about 30-50% of the Gems I've been using
are not. The changes are mostly trivial, but they'll need to get made.

That's one of the great things about Matz releasing 1.9 as a
development release: we all get a lot of time to handle the migration.



Dave

On Jan 7, 2008, at 20:25 PM, Dave Thomas wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:55 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>> (Q1) timeframe for 1.9 to be production ready
>>
>> We don't know. We REALLY hope it comes soon. But there are so many
>> variables involved. Only good news is 1.9 spec is almost fixed at
>> the last Christmas.
>
> And, from my own experience testing stuff for PickAxe3, work now
> with the maintainers of the Gems you use to make sure they will be
> compatible. As it stands now, about 30-50% of the Gems I've been
> using are not. The changes are mostly trivial, but they'll need to
> get made.

Hopefully I can give an updated number in about 4 weeks.