> I much prefer 'location', because it is something that every Ruby > implementation can provide. iseq is super super low-level, and we > should think hard about the API before calling it public. True. I suppose my suggestion was a little bit MRI-centric after all :) Could I then also make a request for a few MRI specific functions, either >> p = proc { |n| n + 2 } => #<Proc:...> >> RubyVM::InstructionSequence.disassemble p # this doesn't currently work or the before mentioned Proc#iseq (Unbound)Method#iseq [see [1]] These would yield some very welcome functionality for projects like [2,3,4] since it would allow users to potentially parse blocks [and rewrite them] before executing them, which has some strong potential. This is available in 1.8.x because the AST is made available to c functions, but not (yet) for 1.9. Thanks for your help. -=R [1] http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-core-google/browse_thread/thread/932c0ea1078e294a [2] http://rewrite.rubyforge.org/ [3] http://parsetree.rubyforge.org/ [4] http://code.google.com/p/ruby-roger-useful-functions/wiki/NamedParameters