From: Thomas E Enebo <tom.enebo@...>
Date: 2011-10-25T23:33:18+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:40355] Re: 2.0 feature questionnaire

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<headius@headius.com> wrote:
>> - Getting source code
>
> This is a far, far better way to allow people access to AST. Give them
> access to the source for a given method or block and provide an
> implementation-independent parsing library. That's the Javascript way,
> and it should be the Ruby way too.

yes!  Please just give a reference to source code and an API for
producing a non-implementation dependent source representation.  We
would certainly help in crafting a neutral AST format.

---- Hijacking ----

There is a lot of talk about how binary compatibility cannot be broken
in native C extension API (much less cext source code breaking).  I
can appreciate the goal, but man you guys really really need to make
your GC compacting....How can you solve that without breaking native C
extension API?  I feel like most of the major complaints about MRI as
an implementation are all blocked because of the current design of the
native C extension API?  It seems like going to Ruby "2" is a great
place to break Cext compatibility to give you guys some room to
improve your implementation.

My side-motive would be that we could collaborate and help make a
native C extension API we (JRuby, others...) can also support well.
That would create more harmony in the community if C extensions could
work anywhere.

-Tom



-- 
blog: http://blog.enebo.com� � �� twitter: tom_enebo
mail: tom.enebo@gmail.com