Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 11, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Paul Brannan <pbrannan / atdesk.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 04:28:32AM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>> The problem with presenting parse trees are manifold:
>>
>> * The parse tree needs to be standardized or frozen
>
> I disagree.  The parse tree can be presented to the user as an
> implementation- and version-specific interface.  There need not be any
> guarantee that the tree or the interface to the tree be stable across
> versions.

Then it's not particularly useful, from a framework perspective.

>
>
>> * The parse tree needs to be retrievable at runtime (meaning you  
>> have to
>> keep an AST or something similar even when you're not using it...huge
>> memory waste)
>
> This is a problem.  1.9 used to keep the AST around but doesn't  
> anymore,
> presumably for this reason.
>
>> * Parse trees reflect internal details of implementation (like  
>> 1.8/1.9
>> parsing Iter as wrapping calls, and the reverse in JRuby).
>>
>> I'd strongly prefer a few targeted reflective APIs, like get_args, be
>> added instead.
>
> I agree.  I don't want to have to walk a parse tree.
>
> (but it's nice to be able to)
>
> Paul
>
>