When people asked for a spec of Ruby, I always thought they meant
something like the Java language spec
(http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/jTOC.doc.html).

In the article, OTOH, when he says "formal" he means something along
the line of  an operational/denotational semantics (which for the most
part is comprehensible only to professional PL researchers).

Or maybe I'm wrong, and everyone's clamoring for an operational
semantics of Ruby...

Nathan

"jbritt / ruby-doc.org" <jbritt / ruby-doc.org> wrote in message news:<3FFDEF70.3020102 / ruby-doc.org>...
> There have been periodic requests for a formal specification of the Ruby 
> language.  As it is, the C code itself is the most complete spec.
> 
> Erik Meijer [0] has an interesting entry on his web log [1] about why 
> smart language designers do not write formal specifications.
> 
> 
> James Britt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [0] http://research.microsoft.com/~emeijer/
> [1] 
> http://blogs.gotdotnet.com/emeijer/PermaLink.aspx/c15c9d4c-e0f7-44b6-8de6-e857910940f3