On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, MikkelFJ wrote:

> > exactly "the full Ruby language" consists of :-) I think I'm in the
> > minority, in that I would actually advocate a formal definition.

You may very well turn out to be in the majority, but I feel differently.
If you had a formal definition of ruby, you'd end up having various
implementations, but never fully compatible.

IMHO that is the major problem of various languages: C, Scheme, etc.
haveyou. One language, one implementation is to me one of the strong
points of Perl, Java, Ruby, etc.

But if there were such a specification, I'd hope it was a minimal as
possible: define a small core set of features, using which the rest could
be implemented.

  -- Nikodemus