From: Robert Feldt <feldt@...>
Date: 2002-01-28T18:52:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Sourcecode dump?

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Olivier CARRERE wrote:

> You're right, I've thought of this system for tuning.
> The base code has to be made inside an editor (this is much more
> convenient).
> 
> I'd like to tune, for instance, for computer games, games rules and
> mechanisms while running it, to instantly see what is going on.
> Maybe I'd be likely to adjust the behaviour of IA objects.
> 
> Many little adjustment which I'd like to have tracks for later use.
> 
> And Ruby can make it (or at least a part of it!)
> 
If someone finished Ruth it might be helpful here. I haven't touched it in
3-4 months but it should be ok to get a representation of Ruby's internal
syntax tree (the ones the interpreter uses to interprete Ruby code) as
Ruby objects. 

If you write a pretty-printer for those objects you should get Ruby code
back. (Will loose comments etc and also BEGIN{} blocks but the latter can
be worked-around but may not be that important)

Better yet, if you write a converter to RubyAst,
RubySchema, RubyTerms or whatever matju's, mine and other proposals for a
way to represent the abstract syntax of Ruby is called (RAS?) you have a
Ruby parser with very good compliance to matz parser (it will not be a 
ruby in ruby parser though!). 

If you write a converter back to the internal format you have a Ruby Macro
system, can have zero-cost aspect-oriented programming and what have
you.

Not sure what matz would think though since it exposes his internal data
structures.

http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/rubyvm/src/other/ruth/

Wish I had the time...

Regards,

Robert Feldt