# ParseTree and the Standard Library

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/parsetree-and-the-standard-library/110551>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [July 27, 2007, 1:24pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/parsetree-and-the-standard-library/110551 "2007-07-27T13:24:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\
**Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 1:24pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/parsetree-and-the-standard-library/110551/1 "2007-07-27T13:24:42Z")

</div>

There some discussion going on the ruby-core mailing list about which  
standard libraries to _remove_ from the official ruby source, now that  
RubyGems is going in. I thought I’d let all you plebians know. I  
personally can’t believe that YAML and Webrick are being proposed for  
the chopping block.

Anyway, that’s not the main reason I’ve written, I’d actually like to  
suggest the Ryan D.’ ParseTree make it _into_ the standard library.  
Why? Well, It’s a low-level inspection library, written in C, that  
does something quite useful --let one inspect code, in a very general  
manner (s-expressions). Short of a better way to achieve this kind of  
inspection, I think this library definitely deserves to be readily  
available.

T.

P.S. Ryan, I’d like to veto your opinion on this manner (with  
exceptional to ParseTree’s technical merits, of course). Don’t take  
that the wrong way, it’s just that, 1) you’ve already principally  
stated you want to unbundle as much as possible from Ruby and 2) this  
is your library. So so either way, it seems you have a pre-defined  
bias. 😉