From: MikkelFJ <mikkelj-anti-spam@...1.dknet.dk>
Date: 2002-01-02T23:06:04+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:30040] Re: Ruby parsers in Ruby


> Now, it seems to me that we have at least a couple of projects where we
> parse Ruby in Ruby (actually, three that I know of):


What I would like more than a joint parser project is a clear Ruby
specification.
It's impossible to do proper parallel implementations without a proper spec.

What is needed is the exact grammar and lexer rules.
And an up to date specification of the standard libraries. The spec need not
be as well-written as say the pick-axe book, but it should unambigiously
define behanviour of the classes.
This is particularly important because ever so often a new function is
introduced which is not covered by the printed publications.
The spec. should preferably also mention the version a given feature were
introduced (and deprecated where applicable).

Wrt. the lexer/parser spec. It may be that the Rockit language is suitable
for this. It would be nice with a compilable specification. A distinct
feature of Rockit is that it doesn't blend implementation with specification
and that it does not have as many problems with conflicts as many other
grammar languages.


MikkelFJ