From: Benoit Cerrina <benoit.cerrina@...>
Date: 2002-01-04T17:32:12+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:30187] Re: Ruby parsers in Ruby

Matz,
I'm trying to understand the way the ruby AST works,
but part of the problem is that there are many node
types which uses the same fields with different semantic
and there is not that many documentation and comments around
to help.  Also the name of the nodes type while short and
maybe mnemonic when you are used to them are not completely
self explanatory, neither is the actions done when you interpret
a given node.
So parse.y maybe a grammar specification but it would need
to have a better documented semantic than just c code in it...
Benoit
"Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote in message
news:1009983569.174031.26576.nullmailer@ev.netlab.jp...
> Hi,
>
> In message "[ruby-talk:30040] Re: Ruby parsers in Ruby"
>     on 02/01/02, "MikkelFJ" <mikkelj-anti-spam@post1.dknet.dk> writes:
>
> |What I would like more than a joint parser project is a clear Ruby
> |specification.
> |It's impossible to do proper parallel implementations without a proper
spec.
> |
> |What is needed is the exact grammar and lexer rules.
>
> The "ruby" source?  parse.y is compilable unambiguous grammer
> description. ;-)
>
> Seriously, Ruby had been too "hot" to write human readable "clear
> specification".  Recently Ruby (at least 1.7) grammer and behaviors
> are becoming relatively stable, so that such attempt may be
> reasonable.
>
> I would welcome volunteers for such effort, as long as the process for
> me to upgrade the spec. is provided.
>
>
> matz.
>