[TxMt] Why the Ruby syntax needs work

[Bryan Liles]

On Feb 27, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Thomas Aylott (subtleGradient) wrote:

> On Feb 27, 2007, at 9:14 AM, Allan Odgaard wrote:
>> Could you btw make a case for the new Ruby syntax? I never figured  
>> out what problem it was supposed to solve.
>
> The default Ruby syntax doesn't scope enough stuff.
> There are very basic things that are completely missing like
> 	method calls, operators and lambda variables.
>
> My Ruby Experimental adds these basic things and a few other  
> niceties like leading space and core library method names and  
> better punctuation support.

How do we get this goodness today?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macromates.com/textmate/attachments/20070305/f5436113/attachment.html>