3 ms·
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 th
by jeremymcanally 17y ago
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 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. :-/
- rufugee 17y agoYes, very good point and a detail I missed. That's extremely unfortunate...the first spec of the language will lag far behind the version everyone should be using, and based on a transitional version that was controversial at best.
- icey 17y agoFTA: 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 17y agoWell 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.