Hi --

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, John Lam (CLR) wrote:

>>> That's only one part of it. The rubygrammar project won't ever say
>>> anything about Marshalling, for example, and that would be a very
>>> important part of a Ruby Language Specification.
>
> Exactly. There's also the dynamic <-> static language interop
> questions to consider, which directly affects projects like JRuby.
> For example - when do you provide a Java string vs. when do you
> provide a string that maps to Ruby semantics?
>
> I envision a RSpec spec being useful to folks that would be writing
> a scanner/parser for Ruby. Other things which dive into more runtime
> semantics that will only run on a subset of Ruby's in the wild will
> be better served by wiki-style docs.

All the Rubys out there should run the same things with the same
results, though.  At least I assume that ensuring that would be the
main goal of a test-based specification.  Or am I misunderstanding
what you mean?

(There may be Ruby-like languages that aren't Ruby-compatible, but I'm
thinking of things that describe themselves as Ruby interpreters or
VMs or whatever.)


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
    (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)