Forum: IronRuby Code Review: RuntimeBoundRules

Announcement (2017-05-07): is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see and for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Tomas M. (Guest)
on 2009-03-26 06:07
(Received via mailing list)
Attachment: RuntimeBoundRules.diff (0 Bytes)
tfpt review "/shelveset:RuntimeBoundRules;REDMOND\tomat"
  Comment  :
  Implements atomizer for Ruby call site binders: A new class
RubyMetaBinderFactory creates sites and caches them in dictionaries.
  Sites are either bound to a runtime (RubyContext) or not. Bound sites
don't emit context check, unbound need to. Bound sites don't take
RubyContext as the first parameter any more. They can still take
RubyScope if needed (such sites have HasScope flag set). Replaces
SiteLocalStorage with RubyCallSiteStorage that holds on the context so
that it is not necessary to pass RubyContext to the sites stored in the
storage. Updates all sites in libraries accordingly.

  Adds -ER command line option that enables tracing of meta-objects
(rules) created by Ruby.
  Refactors MetaObjectBuilder to use type restrictions rather than
expression restrictions.
  Removes RubyClassAttribute.MixinInterfaces - it didn't work correctly
and was almost unused.

  Also improves handling of BOM in 1.8 mode - we previously did exactly
what Ruby does, i.e. report a syntax error from which it is not obvious
what's wrong. If -KU is not specified and UTF8 BOM is found at the
beginning of the source code, the tokenizer reports a level 2 warning,
skips the BOM as if it was whitespace and continues reading the file.

Curt H. (Guest)
on 2009-03-26 18:42
(Received via mailing list)
Looks good!

I like the use of Key.Create to allow construction of a templated class
without providing the template types :).  But why is Key<,> a reference
type instead of a value type?  And I think the name "Pair" would be
better than the name "Key"...

"BOM can be used as an identifier in 1.8 -KU mode" -- good grief!
Tomas M. (Guest)
on 2009-03-26 19:17
(Received via mailing list)
As Dino pointed out if Key was a struct Dictionary<Key, X> would be
jitted for each instantiation of Key.

I didn't named it "Pair", since we might need triples, quadruples, etc.
as well (i.e. Key<,,>, Key<,,,>, etc.)
We might use Tuple in future - if it had Equals and GetHashCode

This topic is locked and can not be replied to.