On Nov 18, 2007 1:20 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter / sun.com> wrote:
>
> Sean O'Halpin wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 2007 8:26 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter / sun.com> wrote:
> >> At the moment, I don't like that there's
> >> only two "mostly correct" parsers in existence: Ruby's Bison-based
> >> parser and JRuby's Jay-based parser.
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm curious, what do you mean by "mostly correct" in the context of MRI?
>
> If MRI is considered the gold standard, then obviously it's 100%
> correct. Of course, it can't be considered the gold standard, since
> minor things change from release to release; so I'd say all parsers
> would be some percentage of "complete" given some
> implementation-independent definition of "Ruby".
>
> But perhaps that's just my opinion :) It's hard to say anyone is
> "correct" when there's no language specification.
>
> - Charlie
>
>

Thanks for the clarification. I guess that's the problem with a de
facto vs a de jure standard - it can be a moving target.

By the way, the progress you're making on JRuby really is a delight - great job.

Regards,
Sean