From: "David A. Black" Date: 2005-05-05T02:00:35+09:00 Subject: Re: Bug or on purpose? Hi -- On Thu, 5 May 2005, Robert Klemme wrote: > "Joe Van Dyk" schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:c715e640505040933dc1a4a9@mail.gmail.com... > >> /me pulls out copy of ISO Ruby standard. >> >> /me notices that it's missing. :( > > /me too > > But that's also ok and fits well with Ruby's dynamic nature. Hint: no static > typing, no ISO spec. ;-) You've hit on one of my pet theories about Ruby discourse and discussion: namely, that the reason so much discussion revolves around changing Ruby (as opposed to using Ruby) is that people get inspired by the dynamic nature of Ruby objects and start to see Ruby itself as such an object. Of course, unlike "def obj.x; end", if some of the changes we've seen talked about were actually implemented, Ruby.object_id would cease to return the same number :-) I've often found myself wishing for a written spec, partly because at times I've been uneasy about the lack of clarity on what constitutes a "Ruby interpreter". But Matz isn't interested in doing a spec, I think, and so far, in spite of my qualms, nothing horrible seems to have happened. David -- David A. Black dblack@wobblini.net