[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: Drafting of Ruby International Standard

Yukihiro Matsumoto

10/26/2008 5:52:00 PM

Hi,

In message "Re: Drafting of Ruby International Standard"
on Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:37:49 +0900, Joshua Ballanco <jballanc@gmail.com> writes:

|So, can we take this to mean that the intention is to eventually have
|an ISO Ruby standard (as opposed to say, Ecma)?

Our goal is establish open standard for Ruby language. ISO Ruby
standard will satisfy our goal, but we don't deny other possibility
yet. But we don't think for Ecma, that tends to require more money
than we can afford.

|Also, while I realize
|the logic behind not using a test-suite as a spec, couldn't the ruby-
|spec work be included as an official test-suite similar to how POSIX
|has the PCTS? Anyway, I'm glad to see work on this front!

I am not sure yet. If RubySpec can be a part of the official spec,
that would be great.

|P.S. Should the ruby-design wiki be updated, or will this work be
|happening independent of the ruby-design work?

It's independent, although we've already discussed with other
developers. ruby-design wiki and developer meeting have not seen
progress for months due to our unfortunate discommunication.

matz.
1 Answer

Shugo Maeda

10/28/2008 10:48:00 AM

0

Hi,

Yukihiro Matsumoto <m...@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> |So, can we take this to mean that the intention is to eventually have =
=A0
> |an ISO Ruby standard (as opposed to say, Ecma)?
>
> Our goal is establish open standard for Ruby language. =A0ISO Ruby
> standard will satisfy our goal, but we don't deny other possibility
> yet. =A0But we don't think for Ecma, that tends to require more money
> than we can afford.

In addition, one of reasons why we need open standard for Ruby is
that the basic guideline for the government procurement in Japan
(http://www.soumu.go.jp/gyoukan/kanri/pdf/07...) require it.
In that policy, we should refer to open standards instead of specific
products for fair competition.

> |Also, while I realize =A0
> |the logic behind not using a test-suite as a spec, couldn't the ruby-
> |spec work be included as an official test-suite similar to how POSIX =A0
> |has the PCTS? Anyway, I'm glad to see work on this front!
>
> I am not sure yet. =A0If RubySpec can be a part of the official spec,
> that would be great.

Indeed, it would be great. I think RubySpec and our draft can be
complementary.

Shugo