# Code Review: RuntimeBoundRules

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/code-review-runtimeboundrules/163917>\
**Category:** IronRuby\
**Created:** [March 26, 2009, 5:07am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/code-review-runtimeboundrules/163917 "2009-03-26T05:07:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![grujildo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@grujildo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/grujildo)\
**Post date:** [March 26, 2009, 5:07am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/code-review-runtimeboundrules/163917/1 "2009-03-26T05:07:56Z")

</div>

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.

Tomas

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![grujildo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@grujildo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/grujildo)\
**Post date:** [March 26, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/code-review-runtimeboundrules/163917/2 "2009-03-26T17:42:50Z")

</div>

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!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![grujildo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@grujildo](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/grujildo)\
**Post date:** [March 26, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/code-review-runtimeboundrules/163917/3 "2009-03-26T18:17:01Z")

</div>

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  
implemented.

Tomas