From: MikkelFJ <mikkelfj-anti-spam@...>
Date: 2002-10-05T04:28:38+09:00
Subject: Re: CRuby (Was: R)


<dblack@candle.superlink.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0210041432070.2677-100000@candle.superlink.net...

> Yes -- what I was getting at was the question of determining what
> exactly "the full Ruby language" consists of :-) I think I'm in the
> minority, in that I would actually advocate a formal definition.
> Otherwise it's hard, for me at least, to think of ruby as just one of
> arbitrarily many ways to gain access to Ruby.

May I join your minority?
It depends of course on how formal you want to be.

I'd like EBNF for the Ruby grammar more than anything.
A documentation of primary databases that bridge the gab between built-in
datatypes and objects: integer, boolean, float, nil, range types.
Operators such as ?<char>, + etc.

Then a minimal list of classes without which Ruby isn't Ruby like Object and
Class, Hash, Array, String.
Global constants ($ whatever, which I'd like to redelegate to an extension).

Mikkel