From: Tony Arcieri Date: 2012-03-24T11:36:18+09:00 Subject: Re: Specification for the Ruby Language(current) --00151747637a399a1604bbf401e9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 No, the Ruby language's specification is laboriously written by hand: http://www.ipa.go.jp/osc/english/ruby/ruby_draft_specification_agreement.html A language specification contains much more than just the grammar, it also contains a formal description of the behavior of the language (i.e. its semantics) as well. Personally I find the RubySpec code examples much more useful than a formal description of the language. On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Carter Cheng wrote: > 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 >> >> > -- Tony Arcieri --00151747637a399a1604bbf401e9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable No, the Ruby language's specification is laboriously written by hand:

A language specification contains much more than just t= he grammar, it also contains a formal description of the behavior of the la= nguage (i.e. its semantics) as well.

Personally I = find the RubySpec code examples much more useful than a formal description = of the language.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Carter= Cheng <carte= rcheng@gmail.com> wrote:
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.



<= font color=3D"#888888">--
Tony Arcieri





--
Tony Arcieri=

--00151747637a399a1604bbf401e9--