Jim Weirich

Won't change this in a minor release. Will consider it for the next major release.

Although I'm in favor of this change in principle, I've decided _not_ to include it in the 0.9.3/10.0.0 changes. If I dropped it in without warning, every single rails application...

- Preserving comments -- Yes, but can that be done with Ripper? - Preserving blank lines -- Also yes. - Deep indentation of subexpressions -- Also yes, as long as...

You are using include? (an Enumerable method), rather than includes? (the TExp method). A subtle difference that I'm not entirely happy with. The TExp/HEAD version currently throws an exception when...

FYI: I see there are a number of changes that haven't been pushed to the gem server. I made a quick release of 0.1.1 and am pushing the gem now....

OK, I just noticed that the README file uses "include?" rather than "includes?" (fixed now). Sorry about that.

Then blocks are essentially translated into RSpec "it" blocks. Each block runs independently of the other blocks and is not effected by the success and failure of any other block....

I would love to provide a Rubinius compatible version. But that requires either Rubinius to support Ripper, or a Sorcerer like library that uses a Rubinius based parser/AST. BTW, this...

FYI: JRuby 1.7.5 will be compatible with natural assertions. Now we just need to get Rubinius up to speed.