On May 19, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Tim Fletcher wrote: >> Note: while there is some obvious benefits to keeping the high level >> design of the two implementations in sync, I have no interest in >> drawing >> attention to language differences. If there are obvious Ruby idioms >> that can make a given section of code smaller or clearer, then by all >> means, such idioms should be used. > > Yes, there are parts that could be made more Rubyish.
In terms of making things more rubyish, I have a rubyforge that I setup for this [1]. Well, I actually set it up for my own parser that I started building from scratch awhile back, but never made much progress on. I'm going to abandon my separate project and contribute to this instead. I'd be more than happy to create a gem for this code and release it there. -ryan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "html5lib-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to html5lib-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/html5lib-discuss?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4