> It all depends how you define "the language itself" :-)  Again, I tend
> to define it as "this thing that Matz wrote and calls 'Ruby'".

Your quite right - until somebody creates another implementation....

It is difficult to derive the core language because Ruby relies on internal
modules such as Kernel for much of it's basic behaviour.

I'd say that classes/modules such as the following:

Object, Class, Module, Kernel, TrueClass, FalseClass, NilClass, FixNum,
Integer, Numeric, Enumerable, Comparable, BigNum, Proc, Method, Array, Hash,
String ...

are part of the core language along with reserved executable code statements
such as if, while, until etc.

FileIO, networking modules, HTML modules etc, I would not class as core
language but as useful extension modules.

--
Justin Johnson

"David Alan Black" <dblack / candle.superlink.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.30.0207310707350.15292-100000 / candle.superlink.net...
> Hello --
>
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Justin Johnson wrote:
>
> >
> > > The question being... what exactly is an implementation of Ruby?  I
> > > know this has come up before, but I still don't have a handle on it.
> >
> > That is a very good question.  I think Matz's implementation is Ruby
with
> > lots of practical and script-useful add-ons.  It's an incredibly
pragmatic
> > tool.  A lot of this is owed to the language concepts.
>
> But that just takes us back to the question: what is "Ruby"?  In other
> words: what is this antecedent, pure, Ur-Thing onto which Matz has
> added all these other things?  I can't identify this thing, so I tend
> to look at the distribution as definitively "Ruby" -- not atomic (when
> it comes to library stuff and extensions), but definitive in language
> features.
>
> > Point is, because there's only one implementation, there isn't an
> > official(?) language standard yet.  Ruby is not an academic ideal, it's
a
> > tangible tool.
>
> Or: the standard could be defined as drop-in replaceability (in both
> directions) for current stable Ruby.  (Mind you, that's unofficial :-)
> Or maybe passing the Rubicon test suite.
>
> > I'm hoping to implement a pure language version. No perlisms, no FileIO,
no
> > SAFE, no threads, just classes, modules, arrays, strings...enough for
the
> > language itself to be complete.
>
> It all depends how you define "the language itself" :-)  Again, I tend
> to define it as "this thing that Matz wrote and calls 'Ruby'".
> Anyway, in case it's not clear in the midst of all my ostensible
> philosophizing, I do look forward to seeing the project.
>
>
> David
>
> --
> David Alan Black
> home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
> work: blackdav / shu.edu
> Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav
>