Closed ghost closed 10 years ago
BlankSlate and BasicObject are essentially not the same thing. BasicObject is much less...
So, the short answer is: yes.
@kschiess thanks, I'll go ahead and close it. is there anything in particular? it looks like this has few methods, but perhaps one or two more than blankslate: http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/BasicObject.html
BasicObject has strictly nothing useful in it. It is very hard to work with and violates expectations all over the board. Try replacing BlankSlate with it and fixing the specs ;) This is best seen in practice...
sure, I did fork with that intention, but I was wondering did I miss something, so opened an issue.
thanks! :)
is the 'blankslate' object strictly necessary anymore? I ask because I understood it as being necessary on 1.8 but with 1.9+ we have
BasicObject
. I depend on parslet indirectly viatoml
, in a library I maintain calledbinding.repl
. I would love to drop the third dependency(blankslate) and depend on justtoml
, and then through that,parslet
. is this possible, or isBasicObject
insufficient in one way or another?