Anybody know if there is anything like parse_tree for 1.9?
Thanks!
-=R
Roger P. wrote:
Anybody know if there is anything like parse_tree for 1.9?
Thanks!
Perhaps RubyVM::InstructionSequence.compile or
RubyVM::InstructionSequence::compile_file will do something similar to
what you want. These methods are standard in 1.9
alex
On Oct 9, 2008, at 22:30 PM, Roger P. wrote:
Anybody know if there is anything like parse_tree for 1.9?
require ‘ripper’
Ripper.sexp ‘1 + 1’ #=> [:program, [[:binary, [:@int, “1”, [1, 0]], :
+, [:@int, “1”, [1, 4]]]]]
On Oct 9, 2008, at 22:30 , Roger P. wrote:
Anybody know if there is anything like parse_tree for 1.9?
ruby_parser (new and massively improved release coming soon)… don’t
let the 1.0.0 release bias your opinion too much.
The only thing it doesn’t do is ASTs of runtime objects (procs,
methods, classes/modules). It is 100% compatible with ParseTree’s
output tho (that also has a big release coming and there is some
incompatibilities, tho minor).
On Oct 10, 2008, at 01:02 , Alex F. wrote:
Roger P. wrote:
Anybody know if there is anything like parse_tree for 1.9?
Thanks!Perhaps RubyVM::InstructionSequence.compile or
RubyVM::InstructionSequence::compile_file will do something similar
to what you want. These methods are standard in 1.9
unfortunately, no… that’s not even close. 
I’ve asked multiple times if we could get bytecode for procs and short
of writing more C extensions to hack it out myself, I doubt it’ll ever
show. Even still, we’d have to write a bytecode decompiler to
something that was remotely readable/usable. That’s a lot of work.