| > 1. Decided Ruby needed more formal specification 2. Made their own formal specification RubySpec isn't a formal specification in any way, shape or form. RubySpec is an implementation test suite, and for MRI a regression suite. It uses language constructs and expects a behaviour A based on Ruby version B (which is itself assumed to match MRI version B). RubySpec isn't somebody thinking up his own definition of Ruby (let alone doing so formally), it's somebody encoding MRI behaviour into a test suite because he needed that to code his own Ruby implementation. > Why should the ruby developers have to follow his specification? There's nothing to follow, there's a test suite to run. A test suite which encodes existing MRI behaviour. Why should ruby developers run it? Because it catches bugs is a pretty good reason. > The fact that there is a bug that causes a segfault only indicates there is a bug, I don't see it as an indictment of the core language process. How is segfaulting on existing code not an indictment of the core process when just running an existing test suite would have caught it? > Instead of saying "you should be using my test", you could commit mew tests and patches to upstream. Have you missed the laundry sheet of issues in the existing MRI testing system? |