Rename thread.rb

ruby-talk
1

I think thread.rb should be renamed 'threadutils.rb', with a period
where both exist and the former is deprecated - since Thread itself is
in core, and thread.rb merely introduces supplementary classes,
threadutils seems like an apter name.

What do people think? I'll file an RCR if it sounds like a good idea.

martin

2

"Martin DeMello" <martindemello@gmail.com> writes:

I think thread.rb should be renamed 'threadutils.rb', with a period
where both exist and the former is deprecated - since Thread itself is
in core, and thread.rb merely introduces supplementary classes,
threadutils seems like an apter name.

What do people think? I'll file an RCR if it sounds like a good idea.

What about time.rb?

···

martin

--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org

3

Martin DeMello wrote:

I think thread.rb should be renamed 'threadutils.rb', with a period
where both exist and the former is deprecated - since Thread itself is
in core, and thread.rb merely introduces supplementary classes,
threadutils seems like an apter name.

What do people think? I'll file an RCR if it sounds like a good idea.

This has been discussed before. I think generally the conclusion was
that it would be potentially breaking code to solve something which
isn't tangibly a problem, but feel free to search the archives for
detail without my bias towards the above.

David Vallner

4

I second that. It's not worth the effort. The name is well established and changing it will break *a lot* of code as well as create headaches for package maintainers for all Linux distributions (and probably others as well). It's a bad idea because the benefits are by far outweighed by the disadvantages.

Regards

  robert

···

On 17.12.2006 22:11, David Vallner wrote:

Martin DeMello wrote:

I think thread.rb should be renamed 'threadutils.rb', with a period
where both exist and the former is deprecated - since Thread itself is
in core, and thread.rb merely introduces supplementary classes,
threadutils seems like an apter name.

What do people think? I'll file an RCR if it sounds like a good idea.

This has been discussed before. I think generally the conclusion was
that it would be potentially breaking code to solve something which
isn't tangibly a problem, but feel free to search the archives for
detail without my bias towards the above.