Issue #14844 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).


akr (Akira Tanaka) wrote:
> We are not sure the stability of RubyVM::AbstractSyntaxTree.
> For example, Ruby 2.7 will add new node for pattern match.

Right, so I think we need to document it's not stable yet as clearly as possible.

> We want to know such unstability has big impact for
> practical applications or not.

New nodes are probably fine, but reordering node fields for instance I guess would break most usages given the current API.

> I feel it is difficult to decide stable definition of AST now.

I understand, I'm not asking a stable definition.
But I'd like to see in the documentation mentions of use-cases where using RubyVM::AbstractSyntaxTree over alternatives would make sense.
That way, I hope we can make it clear for some use-cases using RubyVM::AbstractSyntaxTree is not the right tool, or at least not always the best tool for it.

> I think what we can now is adding some warning in document.

I think that would be a good step for 2.7.

----------------------------------------
Feature #14844: Future of RubyVM::AST? 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14844#change-78147

* Author: rmosolgo (Robert Mosolgo)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: yui-knk (Kaneko Yuichiro)
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
Hi! Thanks for all your great work on the Ruby language. 

I saw the new RubyVM::AST module in 2.6.0-preview2 and I quickly went to try it out. 

I'd love to have a well-documented, user-friendly way to parse and manipulate Ruby code using the Ruby standard library, so I'm pretty excited to try it out. (I've been trying to learn Ripper recently, too: https://ripper-preview.herokuapp.com/, https://rmosolgo.github.io/ripper_events/ .)

Based on my exploration, I opened a small PR on GitHub with some documentation: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/1888

I'm curious though, are there future plans for this module? For example, we might: 

- Add more details about each node (for example, we could expose the names of identifiers and operators through the node classes)
- Document each node type 

I see there is a lot more information in the C structures that we could expose, and I'm interested to help out if it's valuable. What do you think? 



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>