[tjic]

> If someone were to say “Ruby is defined by its' > implementation”, we could not argue... [ elided ] > This is why we need a language reference.

Huh?

I'm entirely open to the ideas proposed here, but I fail to see any ACTUAL benefits. The fact that a new process to define and manage the language prevents a rhetorical device from being used - that's a serious argument in favor of the change?

Am I missing something?

[Derbasti]

A formal definition of the language could separate implementaion specific bugs from actual language features. It would thus help implementers of alternative implementations of Ruby.

[nathany]

Sorry. That's some poor organization of the writing on my part, which I've revised slightly.

My article is still leaning heavily on Brian Ford's talk for the reasons why the current (lack of) process is an issue that needs consideration. I certainly could've done a better job of summarizing that before throwing in my 2 cents.