From: William Rutiser <wruyahoo05@...>
Date: 2011-05-17T09:21:18+09:00
Subject: Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation.

On 2011-05-16 6:42 AM, no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
> I started investigating ruby.
> It's very informal, which is NOT suitable for computing.
> The chatty syntax introduction that: IF can come before
> or after, as you like, and arguments can be bracketed
> or not, as you like and block can use "}" or END; is BAD!
>
> The bloke who heads 'intentional programming' wrote a
> good article explaining why<having too many degrees
> of freedom>  makes the task more difficult, as you already
> know intuitively.
>
> Because this is my Nth programming language, I just
> want to make a<template driven editor>  for my `mc`;
> where the basic structures can be merely filled in.
>
> We don't want to be bothered with ANOTHER arbitrary
> syntax -- do we?
>
> IMO the clearest syntax representation ever, was the
> syntax-diagram format of PASCAL which was used in
> the 70s.
>
> Can anybody point me to an on-line minimal formal
> syntax for ruby, so as to not rely on the chatty tutors.
> We want a train-time-table format; not a novel.
>
> Thanks,
>
> == Chris Glur.

You may find these useful:
http://ruby.runpaint.org/
http://www.ipa.go.jp/software/open/ossc/english/ruby/Ruby_final_draft_enu_20100825.pdf

While not online,
[ "The Ruby Programming Language", David Flanagan & Yukihiro Matsumoto, 
O'reilly ]
is pretty thorough and concise.

Bill Rutiser