On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:39 AM, David A. Black <dblack@[...].com>  wrote:

>  Mind you, I really don't think it would be a calamity, just a little
>  hard to account for in terms of what's around it.

Not completely on-point, but I tend to be rather conservative when
thinking about such proposed changes.

I've recently taken over an existing Rails app, one of the first tasks
was to get it to run with Ruby 1.9.

Most of the changes I needed to make turned out to do with the fact
that 1.9 redefined Array#to_s

Where prior to 1.9 Array#to_s was the same as Array#join so:

  [1, nil, "foo"].to_s =>  "1foo"

in 1.9 it's been redefined to be the same as Array#inspect so:

 [1, nil, "foo"].to_s =>  "[1, nil, \"foo\"]"

I was surprised at how many times an array was used in a context which
expected the pre-1.9 behavior.

When I explained to the client that so many changes were caused
because Ruby 1.9 changed Array#to_s  his response was "Why did they do
that?"


Of course the upside of such changes is that they generate billable
hours, but I'd rather generate more value per hour.  But c'est la vie!
-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale