From: Carter Cheng Date: 2012-03-24T10:51:52+09:00 Subject: Re: Specification for the Ruby Language(current) --14dae93403fd7a7fa004bbf362e9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Tony, It would seem to me that both are needed since a programmer would have difficulty referring to a non-text specification. Is the specification autogenerated from the context free grammar? I am rather unfamiliar with the notion of an executable spec. Regards, Carter. On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Tony Arcieri wrote: > It's impossible to know if a language conforms to an on-paper > specification, because an on-paper specification is on-paper and therefore > can't provide any way to check that a given implementation matches what has > been written down. > > In order to do that sort of automatic checking, you need an executable > specification of the language, which is what RubySpec provides: > > http://rubyspec.org/ > > In my opinion, this makes RubySpec a lot more useful than an on-paper > specification, which relies on end user feedback as they discover parts of > an implementation that don't match what's written down. An executable > specification can automatically tell you if you conform to it on a whim. > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Carter Cheng wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I have been wondering if there has been some updates since the >> publication of the book by Flanagan and Matsumoto? I am curious how much I >> can expect JRuby, CRuby etc. to still conform to this description? Is there >> some sort of specification out there (similar to the Self specification or >> the Scheme rnrs)? >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Carter. >> > > > > -- > Tony Arcieri > > --14dae93403fd7a7fa004bbf362e9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tony,

It would seem to me that both are needed since = a programmer would have difficulty referring to a non-text specification. I= s the specification autogenerated from the context free grammar? I am rathe= r unfamiliar with the notion of an executable spec.

Regards,

Carter.

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Tony Arcieri <tony.arcieri@gmail.= com> wrote:
It's impossible to know if a language co= nforms to an on-paper specification, because an on-paper specification is o= n-paper and therefore can't provide any way to check that a given imple= mentation matches what has been written down.

In order to do that sort of automatic checking, you need an = executable specification of the language, which is what RubySpec provides:<= /div>


In my opinion, this makes RubySpec a lot more useful th= an an on-paper specification, which relies on end user feedback as they dis= cover parts of an implementation that don't match what's written do= wn. An executable specification can automatically tell you if you conform t= o it on a whim.


On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Carter Chen= g <cartercheng@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,

I have been wondering if there has been som= e updates since the publication of the book by Flanagan and Matsumoto? I am= curious how much I can expect JRuby, CRuby etc. to still conform to this d= escription? Is there some sort of specification out there (similar to the S= elf specification or the Scheme rnrs)?



Regards,

Ca= rter.



--
Tony Arcieri


--14dae93403fd7a7fa004bbf362e9--