Un 1.0.0 Released


#1

un version 1.0.0 has been released!

un provides unextend and uninclude to allow for a better
prototype-oriented programming experience.

Changes:

1.0.0 / 2008-11-07


#2

On Nov 7, 9:36 pm, Ryan D. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

un version 1.0.0 has been released!

un provides unextend and uninclude to allow for a better
prototype-oriented programming experience.

Why another when we already have Mixology and Mixco?

http://github.com/why/mixico/tree/master
http://www.somethingnimble.com/bliki/mixology

-7rans.


#3

On Nov 7, 2008, at 23:50 , Trans wrote:

Why another when we already have Mixology and Mixco?

oh… the irony…


#4

Hi,

In message “Re: [ANN] un 1.0.0 Released”
on Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:36:32 +0900, Ryan D.
removed_email_address@domain.invalid writes:

|un version 1.0.0 has been released!

Ah, did you know we have a library file un.rb in the standard
distribution?

          matz.

#5

On Nov 7, 2008, at 7:36 PM, Ryan D. wrote:

1.0.0 / 2008-11-07

cfp:~ > ruby -r un -e ‘puts “ruh-roh!”’
ruh-roh!

cfp:~ > head /opt/local/lib/ruby/1.8/un.rb

= un.rb

Copyright © 2003 WATANABE Hirofumi removed_email_address@domain.invalid

This program is free software.

You can distribute/modify this program under the same terms of Ruby.

== Utilities to replace common UNIX commands in Makefiles etc

problem?

a @ http://codeforpeople.com/


#6

On Nov 8, 2008, at 01:43 , ara.t.howard wrote:

cfp:~ > ruby -r un -e ‘puts “ruh-roh!”’
ruh-roh!

problem?

gah. I forgot about it… I doubt much of anyone uses the stdlib
un.rb, but given this additional problem, I should still prolly rename
it:

520 % ruby -e ‘require “rubygems”; require “un”; p Un::VERSION’
-e:1: uninitialized constant Un (NameError)

bad

521 % ruby -e ‘require “rubygems”; gem “un”; require “un”; p
Un::VERSION’
“1.0.0”

good enough, but kinda lame


#7

On Nov 8, 8:49 am, Ryan D. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

On Nov 7, 2008, at 23:50 , Trans wrote:

Why another when we already have Mixology and Mixco?

oh… the irony…

If you want to ask me about a project of mine, feel free. But I’m
asking you about yours, b/c I want to understand the relative merits
of the different approaches.

T.


#8

On Nov 8, 2008, at 13:19 , Yukihiro M. wrote:

Hi,

In message “Re: [ANN] un 1.0.0 Released”
on Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:36:32 +0900, Ryan D. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid

writes:

|un version 1.0.0 has been released!

Ah, did you know we have a library file un.rb in the standard
distribution?

I did at one point, but I forgot. Given that it requires an explicit
gem activation to get picked up, I will rename it:

% ruby -e ‘require “rubygems”; require “un”; p Un::VERSION’
-e:1: uninitialized constant Un (NameError)
% ruby -e ‘require “rubygems”; gem “un”; require “un”; p Un::VERSION’
“1.0.0”