Maybe. Is that good?
— Jim Freeze jim@freeze.org wrote:
On Monday, 25 November 2002 at 11:23:52 +0900, Michael Campbell > wrote:
Well said; I found this to be the best balanced between rubyish
and
still readable.Hmmm…rubyish… that’s awful close to rubish.
Yahoo IM: michael_s_campbell
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
Hi –
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Jim Freeze wrote:
On Monday, 25 November 2002 at 11:23:52 +0900, Michael Campbell wrote:
Well said; I found this to be the best balanced between rubyish and
still readable.Hmmm…rubyish… that’s awful close to rubish.
I still intend some day to write a Ruby shell called “rubysh”
(pronounced “rubbish” 
David
–
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web: http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav
Hmm, sounds like a codefest idea…
I’ve given a little thought to a shell
like that. What would it look like in
practice, though?
Hal
----- Original Message -----
From: dblack@candle.superlink.net
To: “ruby-talk ML” ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: Ruby idom needed
Hi –
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Jim Freeze wrote:
On Monday, 25 November 2002 at 11:23:52 +0900, Michael Campbell wrote:
Well said; I found this to be the best balanced between rubyish and
still readable.Hmmm…rubyish… that’s awful close to rubish.
I still intend some day to write a Ruby shell called “rubysh”
(pronounced “rubbish”