Hello --

On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, David Alan Black wrote:
> > "Extracting" a standard, strictly speaking, would include
> > standardizing bugs... so there could of course be some iterative play
> > between core Ruby and the descriptive standard.  But the idea would be
> > to protect the current language-development culture while still
> > presenting a formal standard as an interface to the world.
>
> If you want to really push this idea forward, let's have:
>
> 	1. two implementations of the whole interpreter+lib;
> 	2. a test suite;
> 	3. a contracts suite.

I follow #2 and #3 more than #1 -- not as a general matter but just in
this connection.  That is, I'm not sure why/whether the process of
capturing a standard from a given version of Ruby would require a
second implementation.

> >   * the floodgate of implementations could open;
>
> IMHO unless some people here are really motivated to document+stdize Ruby,
> this will begin to happen way before formal description happens.

I agree, and I'm not sure how I feel about it.  If it isn't clear
exactly what they're implementing (i.e., what exactly is "Ruby"), that
probably won't solve the problem that some have mentioned of
acceptance and credibility in the corporate world.  (I can only
speculate on this, as I know that world mainly second-hand :-)  Also
keeping in sync with developments would be easier with a written
standard, so that even if one were not cutting edge one would at least
know it (rather than every implementor having to follow every change
in Ruby -- which, I assume, they simply wouldn't).


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav