From: Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@...>
Date: 2005-01-28T06:04:54+09:00
Subject: Re: "Duck Typing" or "No need for abstract classes"

Hello Mathieu,

MB> Depends what kind of Ruby one writes. I have written a lib that includes a
MB> spec of the X11 display protocol, and is less than 100k, yet defines over
MB> 400 classes, most of which are anonymous, and most defined methods are
MB> eval'ed from strings built at load time.

MB> Well, needless to say that any class browser chokes to death on that kind
MB> of code.

No i was thinking about this and how i want to implement it in Arachno
Ruby. Sure with this you can't use any kind of static code analysis.
But we can use the fact that ruby scripts are executed hundert of
times during development. So if i hack the interpreter and record the
create_method, create_class, create_module (don't know how they are named in
eval.c) then i can find out what you are building with your evals. At the
end of the program run i output this gathered data about the class
universe to the class browser which mixes it together with the data
from the static code analysis and previous runs maybe by using the
bayesian formulars.

I found this as the only good solution after looking at the ruby TK
source code.

MB> I think that thoroughly applying DRY/OAOO much lessens the need for a

Sorry i forgot this 2 acronyms. DRY ? OAOO ?


-- 
 Best regards,                        emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
 Lothar Scholz                        http://www.ruby-ide.com
 CTO Scriptolutions                   Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's