MikkelFJ wrote:
> > 3. A Ruby-in-Ruby "reference" implementation. Not for
> >    everyday use, but as a rigorous/readable/working
> >    description of the language.
> 
> I don't really like that because it could easily become unprecise by
> depending on some special case in the implementation it is running on.

That is really the situation right now. The "ruby" implementation is the
reference, and it's not always clear what is essential behavior and what
is just side-effects.
But it isn't that big a problem. We haven't come across many problems
like that when creating a new implementation. My guess is that this
aspect was worse in creating the win32-port than it is in
re-implementing the interpreter.

/Anders
-- 

A n d e r s  B e n g t s s o n  |  ndrsbngtssn / yahoo.se
Stockholm, Sweden               |

_____________________________________________________
F?lj VM p? n?ra h?ll p? Yahoo!s officielle VM-sajt www.yahoo.se/vm2002
H?ll dig ajour med nyheter och resultat, med vinnare och f?rlorare...