# Whats new/fixed in Ruby 1.9 and Ruby 2.0 **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [June 16, 2006, 1:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586 "2006-06-16T13:00:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 7:17pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/21 "2006-06-16T19:17:14Z")
On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:09 PM, ts wrote: > Guy Decoux That is amazing. You’ve taken RTFM to a whole new level. I like it. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/22 "2006-06-16T23:37:47Z")
On 6/16/06, Reggie Mr [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Austin Z. wrote: > > > It’s pretty easy to find the information without searching miles of > > email messages and without being asinine. It _still_ doesn’t belong on > > the official Ruby webpage. > > So you think it’s best for people to read about what’s new in 1.9 from > some idiots blog than from the official Ruby website? > > Get a clue and stop being so arrogant. Good advice. Instead of giving it, maybe you should take it. [http://www.google.com/search?q=%2Bruby+%2B"Austin+Ziegler"](http://www.google.com/search?q=%2Bruby+%2B%22Austin+Ziegler%22) ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 4:00am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/23 "2006-06-17T04:00:08Z")
Austin Z. wrote: > The Ruby web pages should primarily talk about production releases. > Not future releases. The folks beind Ruby aren’t into vapourware the > way that Microsoft is. Lovely thread… For a minute I thought there was a point in there. But I’m not sure. I think there is something more that can be done with general documentation of the current Production Ruby language. I also realize that A) this is really boring and B) by the time the ink dries it is probably out of date. That said: I’m not at a point where I would consider it safe for me to start putting together “official” rDoc publications or modifying the files themselves but what/how does the Ruby documentation project get things done? (probably another mailing but still valid here). I’ve written over 5 lines of code, so that makes me something of an expert according to this thread. However, 100 lines probably doesn’t move me very far up the food chain. But I still need docs and I spent most of last night reading the source for dbi trying to figure out what methods I could call and what was returned. Glad it’s open code, but I did find the documentation a bit lacking. What constructive suggestions can someone provide to improve this for the community? ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 4:27am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/24 "2006-06-17T04:27:42Z")
On Friday 16 June 2006 7:58 pm, Tom A. wrote: > But I still need docs and I spent most of last night reading the source for > dbi trying to figure out what methods I could call and what was returned. > Glad it’s open code, but I did find the documentation a bit lacking. > > What constructive suggestions can someone provide to improve this for the > community? For the most part, suggestions aren’t what is needed. Time and effort is. Contribute some documentation in some area that seems lacking. The effort will be appreciated. I’ll make you an offer. If you send to me some additional documentation for DBI, I will make sure it gets uploaded and made available for others to use. Kirk H. ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 4:34am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/25 "2006-06-17T04:34:39Z")
On 6/16/06, Tom A. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > boring and B) by the time the ink dries it is probably out of date. > You’re right. And what you may not be seeing – because it’s, as you > said, Really Boring – is that there are people who are contributing > increasing levels of documentation to Ruby where it counts: in ri. > There’s a Summer of Code project that will bring enhancements to > rannotate (think php.net-style documentation for Ruby). There’s a new > visual identity happening soon, and I think that we’re going to see a > lot of really good stuff there, as well as increasing documentation > and relevant links to the various places where documentation can be > found (articles at Artima’s Ruby Code & Style, the O’Reilly Ruby blog, > James B.'s [ruby-doc.org](http://ruby-doc.org), etc.). It’s just a matter that all of this > work is being done mostly by people in their (_cough-cough_) copious > free time. > I’m not at a point where I would consider it safe for me to start putting > together “official” rDoc publications or modifying the files themselves but > what/how does the Ruby documentation project get things done? (probably another > mailing but still valid here). You find a piece of code that you think is under-documented and you document it. Preferably, you tell people that you’re documenting this, and then when it’s done, you provide a universal patch (diff -u) for your changed documentation. If you’re document a C file, you update the .document file, too – but I’m not too sure about that. 😉 > I’ve written over 5 lines of code, so that makes me something of an expert > according to this thread. However, 100 lines probably doesn’t move me very far > up the food chain. That was exasperation, but there is a point where I’d _much_ rather work with people who ask me “hey, this seems weak – what can I do to help” than people who say “well, this ought to be this way.” Expecting others to do it for them. Or expecting things that just _aren’t_ realistic. > But I still need docs and I spent most of last night reading the source for dbi > trying to figure out what methods I could call and what was returned. Glad it’s > open code, but I did find the documentation a bit lacking. I’d talk to the folks behind the revitalized DBI project. That’s actually _separate_ from Ruby itself. I don’t know your background, but that sometimes surprises PHP people, who are used to having all of this handed to them as part of the “language.” > What constructive suggestions can someone provide to improve this for the community? Changes. Positive criticism. Even things like “How do I establish a connection with Ruby DBI over Oracle with Instant Client and not set ORACLE\_HOME”? That may get someone thinking and providing an answer. Add things to wikis if you find them. _Questions_ are good. Pronouncements that something is suboptimal … aren’t. 😉 -austin ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 5:38am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/26 "2006-06-17T05:38:51Z")
Hi, In message “Re: Whats new/fixed in Ruby 1.9 and Ruby 2.0” on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:27:23 +0900, Alex N. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) writes: |\> That is amazing. You’ve taken RTFM to a whole new level. I like it. 🙂 | |Yeah, although it makes me look dumb, I like it 🙂 And that’s what we feel everytime. ``` matz. ``` ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 5:48am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/27 "2006-06-17T05:48:06Z")
Hi, In message “Re: Whats new/fixed in Ruby 1.9 and Ruby 2.0” on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 06:21:33 +0900, Reggie Mr [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) writes: |So you think it’s best for people to read about what’s new in 1.9 from |some idiots blog than from the official Ruby website? Yes, in a sense. Ruby 1.9 is so quick to change, it’d be our burden to keep track of “what’s new” organized and updated. The page in [www.eigenclass.org](http://www.eigenclass.org) is a nice one, certainly not an idiot’s work. I appreciate it very much. If you want to know the detail, You can inspect the ChangeLog, from [http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ruby/#dirlist](http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ruby/#dirlist) ``` matz. ``` ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 11:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/28 "2006-06-16T23:50:36Z")
On 6/16/06, Reggie Mr [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Austin Z. wrote: > > > It’s pretty easy to find the information without searching miles of > > email messages and without being asinine. It _still_ doesn’t belong on > > the official Ruby webpage. > > So you think it’s best for people to read about what’s new in 1.9 from > > some idiots blog than from the official Ruby website? When that blog is from Mauricio F. (who is most certainly _not_ an idiot), you’d do best to read it. Given that 1.9 is _not_ an official release, but a development sandbox, I think that it’s entirely reasonable that the information about what is in it is _not_ on the Ruby website. Otherwise, people who haven’t got a clue would start deploying on Ruby 1.9 and then update … and find their code doesn’t work because they started depending on test features. This isn’t being arrogant, Reggie. This is being realistic. Ruby 1.9 is not a production Ruby. I expect information on it to be somewhat out of date and from sources who are extremely interested in it and intimately involved in its development process. I _expect_ that the information on Ruby 1.8 will be complete. > Get a clue and stop being so arrogant. I’m not being arrogant. I’m just thinking you’re asking for something that is unreasonable. And that you’re being asinine about that request. > You have turned a simple request into a large nothing! The Ruby web pages should primarily talk about production releases. Not future releases. The folks beind Ruby aren’t into vapourware the way that Microsoft is. > If you don’t like what I’ve said, don’t answer my post. _yawn_ -austin ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 6:33am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/29 "2006-06-17T06:33:31Z")
Tom A. wrote: > I’m not at a point where I would consider it safe for me to start > putting together “official” rDoc publications or modifying the files > themselves but what/how does the Ruby documentation project get things > done? (probably another mailing but still valid here). See: [http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib/status.html](http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib/status.html) for how to contribute docs and doc patches for the Ruby standard library. Additions or changes to the core library docs can be submitted on the ruby-core mailing list. There is Yet Another Mailing List for the Ruby Documentation Project. See: [Ruby-Doc.org: Documenting the Ruby Language](http://www.ruby-doc.org/about) Traffic is catatonic. Mostly, people who are writing docs just write docs, and see that they get committed. Very little discussion, though contributions are welcome. – James B. [http://www.ruby-doc.org](http://www.ruby-doc.org) - Ruby Help & Documentation [Ruby Code & Style](http://www.artima.com/rubycs/) - The Journal By & For Rubyists [http://www.rubystuff.com](http://www.rubystuff.com) - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff [http://yourelevatorpitch.com](http://yourelevatorpitch.com) - Finding Business Focus ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 7:07am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/30 "2006-06-17T07:07:24Z")
Austin Z. wrote: > … as well as increasing documentation > and relevant links to the various places where documentation can be > found (articles at Artima’s Ruby Code & Style, the O’Reilly Ruby blog, > James B.'s [ruby-doc.org](http://ruby-doc.org), etc.). Just to clarify, I look after [ruby-doc.org](http://ruby-doc.org), but the real work is done by those providing documentation. – James B. “In physics the truth is rarely perfectly clear, and that is certainly universally the case in human affairs. Hence, what is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth.” - R. Feynman ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 6:39am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/31 "2006-06-17T06:39:55Z")
Reggie Mr wrote: > Get a clue and stop being so arrogant. > Wow. “Get a clue and stop being so arrogant.” TFF. 🙂 – James B. [http://www.ruby-doc.org](http://www.ruby-doc.org) - Ruby Help & Documentation [Ruby Code & Style](http://www.artima.com/rubycs/) - The Journal By & For Rubyists [http://www.rubystuff.com](http://www.rubystuff.com) - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff [http://yourelevatorpitch.com](http://yourelevatorpitch.com) - Finding Business Focus ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 12:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/32 "2006-06-17T12:10:43Z")
Tom A. wrote: > What constructive suggestions can someone provide to improve this for > the community? I have to be honest, Ruby isn’t the most well-documented language, from a newbies point of view. The docs aren’t as tutorial-like as, say, the PHP manual is. Of course, as other have already said, Ruby doesn’t get documented by itself – help is appreciated. I’d like to see a “manual” on [ruby-lang.org](http://ruby-lang.org), one that shares the visual identity of the main site. Preferably without the use of frames. Could a little tweaking of rDoc make that happen? If so, I may be able to cook up some usable and relatively accessible XHTML and CSS, though I have to say I’m not much of a graphics artist, so I might need some help with that, unless we’re going completely minimalistic. Cheers, Daniel ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 2:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/33 "2006-06-17T14:00:03Z")
Yukihiro M. wrote: > Yes, in a sense. Ruby 1.9 is so quick to change, it’d be our burden > to keep track of “what’s new” organized and updated. The page in > [www.eigenclass.org](http://www.eigenclass.org) is a nice one, certainly not an idiot’s work. I > appreciate it very much. If you want to know the detail, You can > inspect the ChangeLog, from > > [http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ruby/#dirlist](http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ruby/#dirlist) It does need to up-to-date 100% of the time. But the ruby website needs to say something about what’s going on and whats coming. Most software companies inform the user base about the next latest and greatest to come. And the comment about it possibly being vaperware doesn’t really matter when it comes to opensource. Everyone knows that all work could just stop because of lack of resources. Thoses are the risk that everyone must understand when dealing with opensource. Thanks ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 2:27pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/34 "2006-06-17T14:27:49Z")
On Jun 17, 2006, at 13:00, Reggie Mr wrote: > It does need to up-to-date 100% of the time. > The changelog is, by definition, up to date 100% of the time. As for the rest, I think you have your answer, and continuing your little tantrum isn’t likely to get you very far. I’m curious, though, do you even know who it is you’re corresponding with on here? Google’s your friend in this regard, despite the strange aversion you seem to have for doing anything for yourself. matthew smillie. ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 3:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/35 "2006-06-17T15:09:09Z")
Hi, In message “Re: Whats new/fixed in Ruby 1.9 and Ruby 2.0” on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:00:15 +0900, Reggie Mr [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) writes: |Everyone knows that all work could just stop because of lack of |resources. | |Thoses are the risk that everyone must understand when dealing with |opensource. The improved documentation is marvelous, if it happens. We made the official web site, we made [www.ruby-doc.org](http://www.ruby-doc.org), etc. We still admit for the space for improvement. To achieve it, we need motivation, and contribution. Your complain nor accuse for our laziness does not help improvement. Because we already know what you’ve said. ``` matz. ``` ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 2:05pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/36 "2006-06-17T14:05:11Z")
Austin Z. wrote: > When that blog is from Mauricio F. (who is most certainly _not_ > an idiot), you’d do best to read it. Given that 1.9 is _not_ an > official release, but a development sandbox, I don’t know Mauricio F. and shouldn’t need to know him to find out information on Ruby 1.9…it simple should be a link on the Ruby website. > I think that it’s > entirely reasonable that the information about what is in it is _not_ > on the Ruby website. Otherwise, people who haven’t got a clue would > start deploying on Ruby 1.9 and then update … and find their code > doesn’t work because they started depending on test features. You’ve got to be kidding me!! I think most developers know what Alpha and Beta software means…including you. ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 8:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/37 "2006-06-17T20:50:46Z")
Matthew S. wrote: > On Jun 17, 2006, at 13:00, Reggie Mr wrote: > > > It does need to up-to-date 100% of the time. > > The changelog is, by definition, up to date 100% of the time. This was a typo, it should have read…“It does NOT need to be up-to-date 100% of the time.” Sorry for the mixup there… ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 9:01pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/38 "2006-06-17T21:01:06Z")
Matthew S. wrote: > I’m curious, though, do you even know who it is you’re corresponding > with on here? > Why should it matter, if I don’t agree with what they are say, I could > care less who they are. As far as Mauricio F., this is what I found…doesn’t seem relavant. [http://www.promesa.org/leadership/docs/Fernandez.html](http://www.promesa.org/leadership/docs/Fernandez.html) As I’ve said before, if it doesn’t come from the official Ruby website it’s difficult to say with any certainty that the information you are reading can be trusted. ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 10:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/39 "2006-06-17T22:46:44Z")
Reggie; I’m going to try to help you out while being as civil as possible; however, with that said, I feel it necessary to point out a disturbing pattern occurring in the majority of threads in which you have participated. As others have stated above, you have a tendency to get combative with people and show others a general lack of respect. That in and of itself is unacceptable behavior, but moreover, the people you are arguing with have put a lot of work into the tools you seem to be taking for granted. It is not good etiquette on your part to belittle their efforts. > Austin Z. wrote: > > > It’s pretty easy to find the information without searching miles of > > email messages and without being asinine. It _still_ doesn’t belong on > > the official Ruby webpage. > > So you think it’s best for people to read about what’s new in 1.9 from > > some idiots blog than from the official Ruby website? > > […] > > As far as Mauricio F., this is what I found…doesn’t seem > > relavant. > > [http://www.promesa.org/leadership/docs/Fernandez.html](http://www.promesa.org/leadership/docs/Fernandez.html) It is extremely relevant. He has contributed to this community far more than you have sir. In either case, you have no right to resort to name calling–trust me, it only serves to make you look like a fool. > As I’ve said before, if it doesn’t come from the official Ruby website > it’s difficult to say with any certainty that the information you are > reading can be trusted. You should try to learn how useful things are on your own. Use your mind and evaluate the source for yourself. This will prevent you from missing out on a great amount of useful information. > Get a clue and stop being so arrogant. Please take your own advice Reggie. It is horribly bad form to come into a community and start telling others how things should be done. > You have turned a simple request into a large nothing! No, they are rightfully getting upset at you for your poor behavior. > If you don’t like what I’ve said, don’t answer my post. You will find that if you continue to conduct yourself in the current manor, you will get exactly what you’ve asked for. For the others on the list, I’d like to apologize for the off-topic post. All of your efforts are greatly appreciated. Your contributions are what make ruby (and ruby-talk) as great as they are. ---
**Author:** ![rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@rpw](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rpw)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 11:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586/40 "2006-06-17T23:14:21Z")
I would like to add something on this topic I find it most troubling that I do not know right now if 1.9 will become an official release. While people arguing around had good reasons to do so, they thaught, I believe that the fact that I am troubled shall not be ignored. Not because I am important, simply because I am a human being -until the opposit is proven- and it is likely that others feel likewise. I furthermore believe it is stupid to say something like: “Hey you really need a link there or there” On the other hand I believe it clever, not offensive and correct to ask: “Could somebody kindly give some evidence about the future development of ruby”… … which I am hereby doing. I honestly think it would be _great_ if we could get to facts in this list again. BTW it was me who pointed out that there was no link on the ruby home page. I did not intend it as crticism, I was just surprised - as I stated - and wanted to explain why the link was not indicated by Matthew whome I felt attacked incorrectly by well I wont tell names. Cheers Robert [Previous page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586.md?page=1) [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/whats-new-fixed-in-ruby-1-9-and-ruby-2-0/63586.md?page=3)