Re: Collaborative Ruby Language Specification

On 1/28/07, Ola Bini <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> > On 1/28/07, John Lam (CLR) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm also new to Microsoft, so I'm
> >> learning a lot about the rules of engagement here, so please forgive
> >> me if
> >> you find some of my proposals to be a big strange.
> >
> > ?  Ruby's not being developed by Microsoft, so why would their "rules
> > of engagement" matter here?
>
> Of course, they won't matter for Ruby, but they do matter for John Lam,
> which is what he's saying.

I guess the "here" threw me, but that shouldn't come as a surprise
because, as I've already stated earlier, I'm an ignorant asshole, so I
really need very clear formulations to be able to understand other
people.

> > http://www.rubyforge.org/projects/rubygrammar/

> That's only one part of it. The rubygrammar project won't ever say
> anything about Marshalling, for example, and that would be a very
> important part of a Ruby Language Specification.

Then how about

http://rubytests.rubyforge.org/

?

I figured John might want some pointers to already existing projects
that seem to be doing roughly the same thing that he's doing (or at
least some part of it), so that everyone can get together and work on
some unified "Ruby Language Specification", "collaboratively".
Perhaps he already knew about these two projects, but I was trying to
be helpful, for a change - considering that I'm usually not a nice
guy, so I figured I'd post a link I felt relevant to this discussion.
I promise that this will be my last response, as I'm obviously doing
more harm than good.

   nikolai (awaiting your responses to tell me what I did wrong this time)