Hello --

I see we've got Java implementations and VM's on the rise.  That's great.  I'm
just wondering, though....

What exactly qualifies as an implementation of Ruby?  I assume that it must be a
drop-in replacement for some existing, specific version of Ruby.  If not, it
seems to me to be more a Ruby-like language than a Ruby interpreter.

I guess I'm re-raising the question of some kind of formal language
description.  Or is version-identification and conformity sufficient?


David

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