[#393742] Getting the class of an object. — Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@...32.com>

Consider;

14 messages 2012/03/06

[#393815] arcadia IDE requires tcl/tk and ruby-tk — Thufir Hawat <hawat.thufir@...>

which or where tcl and tk does arcadia require? Is this a gem which I

13 messages 2012/03/13

[#393952] What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...>

Hi!

18 messages 2012/03/21
[#393953] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

Active Support has recently added qualified_const_* methods to Module

[#393954] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

Ah, that won't work in 1.8.

[#393959] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 16:43, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:

[#393960] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:

[#393961] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 20:48, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:

[#393962] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:

[#393967] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2012/03/22

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 22:11, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:

[#393969] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/22

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:

[#394154] uninitialized constant SOCKSSocket — Resident Moron <lists@...>

I am running ruby 1.9.3 on a linux box. I would like to use

10 messages 2012/03/29

[#394160] Why z = Complex(1,2) rather than z = Complex.new(1,2)? — Ori Ben-Dor <lists@...>

What's this syntax, z = Complex(1,2), as opposed to z =

14 messages 2012/03/29

[#394175] shoes no such file to load -- rubygems — Mr theperson <lists@...>

I have installed shoes to develop GUI applications but when I try and

13 messages 2012/03/29

[#394201] Can't open url with a subdomain with an underscore — Jeroen van Ingen <lists@...>

I try to open the following URL: http://auto_diversen.marktplaza.nl/

10 messages 2012/03/30

[#394222] Ruby openssl ECC help plz — no name <lists@...>

I am confused on how to properly export public ECC key. I can see it

13 messages 2012/03/31

Re: Specification for the Ruby Language(current)

From: Tony Arcieri <tony.arcieri@...>
Date: 2012-03-24 02:36:18 UTC
List: ruby-talk #394018
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 <cartercheng@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. 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 <tony.arcieri@gmail.com>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 <cartercheng@gmail.com>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

In This Thread