

Ruby Draft Specification - judofyr
http://ruby-std.netlab.jp/

======
gurgeous
It would be great if our community of Ruby hackers could read this spec and
supply feedback via their comment system. Remember that classes and methods
that aren't included may not be present across implementations.

A few omissions that jumped out just from my quick scan:

\- String.index & String.rindex \- String.strip \- Array.compact \-
Array.pack/String.unpack \- Array.index & Array.rindex \- Array.uniq \-
Enumerable.sort_by \- Dir \- Marshal

Would you be interested in a language that lacked these classes?

------
rufugee
This to me is great news...a first step towards a "standard" ruby. With the
various implementations running around out there, having a documented
specification to refer to (and the ruby equivalent of the Java TCK, which I
believe rubyspec is attempting to become) will be immensely helpful and will
help further the language.

~~~
jeremymcanally
Yes, but their use of 1.8.7 as the baseline is an epic failure in my eyes. If
we're moving to 1.9, _use that_. If you really must use a 1.8 series, don't
use the weird-o transitional one that no one uses. That just doesn't make
sense.

I also think they should work with the RubySpec (<http://rubyspec.org>) folks
to make sure the executable spec is in sync with the written one.

But the Ruby core unfortunately isn't known for really reaching out across the
Pacific, mostly because of the language barrier. :-/

~~~
icey
FTA:

 _Some might argue that we should use Ruby 1.9 as the primary reference, but
Ruby 1.9 is moving fast and its features change frequently. Once we draft the
specification based on Ruby 1.9, the specification and Ruby 1.9 would get
quickly out of sync._

~~~
jeremymcanally
Well that's going to happen no matter what. It seems to be a lot of wasted and
duplicate effort to base it on a soon-to-be-obsolete incarnation of the
language. Build it piece by piece, starting with things that are definitely
settled, then update as needed.

