From: Macario Ortega <macarui@...>
Date: 2009-08-09T07:01:26+09:00
Subject: Re: Kind of ParsTree for 1.9.1


Hi Roger. nice to read you.

I've allready done that with our named arguments gem but I wan't to have 
AST for live objects. The project is going dormant for a while 
(allthough is not gonna die)  because lack of time but I found great 
advice in this thread:

Having a tight and organized set of tests and recycling tests from other 
proyects such as PT and checking other proyects that work with bytecode.

Cheers

Macario


Roger Pack wrote:
> Kevin Rutherford wrote:
>> Hi Macario,
>> 
>>> Does anyone else craves AST manipulation in 1.9.1 as bad as me?
>> 
>> Reek (http://github.com/kevinrutherford/reek/tree) will miss ParseTree
>> in 1.9 too, because it means that some of its Rspec matchers no longer
>> work. Without ParseTree (or equivalent) it's not possible to write:
>> 
>>     MyClass.should_not reek
> 
> You can still pull the code for a method using #source_location [though 
> it's definitely not as nice as using parse tree was, and not as stable].
> 
> A crude example of extracting a method can be found in the method 
> describer gem [1].
> 
> What problems are you running up against exactly?  Learning lessons from 
> python decompyle might be helpful, too.
> I also remember that Paul Brannan had some type of iseq -> c translator, 
> that might be related.
> GL!
> 
> -r
> [1] http://github.com/rogerdpack/method_describer/tree/master

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.