(09/09/2011 03:51 PM), Kirk Haines wrote:
> I was thinking about Urabe's comment that RubySpec only describes
> current CRuby behavior, but doesn't proscribe what future behavior
> should be. That sort of prescriptive behavior could be implemented
> using a guard. A spec that isn't expected to pass currently, on any
> version of Ruby, but that describes a behavior that is desired could
> be flagged as such. Then, at such a time as an implementation of Ruby
> has that behavior implemented, the guard is changed to reflect this.

No, sorry.  I was not talking about such things.

For instance, when you look at current rubyspec, you see

    sprintf("% u", -123).should == "-123"

and you never know WHY IT SHOULD.  I don't believe this is a proper
"standard" behaviour that all CRuby committers can agree.  Giving
negative numbers for %u a programmer should have intended to cast it
to an unsigned integer.  This spec does describe the status quo of
our implementation but not for the "ideal" figure.

There are many such specs in the project.