From: Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>
Date: 2007-12-13T17:13:17+09:00
Subject: Re: RDoc + irb (Was: Fix e2mmap.rb for 1.9)

Ryan Davis wrote:
> 
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 22:11 , Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> 
>> ruby_parser is pure ruby, so that should be ok, but I'm not clear what 
>> 1.9's parser output has to do with eliminating the dependency on IRB. 
>> We expose JRuby AST (plus comment nodes) directly if someone really 
>> wants to use it, but we strongly advise against depending on the AST 
>> structure in any way since it changes over time.
> 
> AST structure may change over time, but a comment node in front of a 
> defn/class/module node is rdoc. that's easy and stable. It'd vastly 
> simplify rdoc's implementation and make it easier to maintain (at the 
> cost of maintaining ruby_parser, which is fine).

We've thought of hacking rdoc in JRuby to use our parser as well, so I 
can appreciate that aspect. But I'm a little worried about the stdlib 
"fast" rdoc code depending on 1.9's AST; it's not going to be an exact 
match in JRuby.

- Charlie