[#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 04:17:47 UTC
List: ruby-talk #394021
My understanding is the existing formal written language specification
covers both Ruby 1.8 and Ruby 1.9, and in doing so is often too generic as
to be useful in order to cover both cases. That is to say, where 1.8 and
1.9 differ, the written spec says something that is inclusive of both, but
perhaps too generic to be meaningful as a language implementer.

Again, your best bet here is going to be RubySpec, which actually includes
specific tests for both versions.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Carter Cheng <cartercheng@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Tony. I was wondering if there was some official language
> specification out there for the 1.9 series with either an operational or
> denotational semantic description or something of that ilk.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Tony Arcieri <tony.arcieri@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
Tony Arcieri

In This Thread