Austin Ziegler <halostatue / gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:49:18 +0900, Luke Graham <spoooq / gmail.com> wrote:
>> Some of it is possible. I have created persistent Ruby objects, for
>> example. Persistent code is possible with some hacking, Ive done
>> something that at least looks like persistent Ruby code from a
>> distance, if you squint ;) Databases work. I use Ruby to generate C
>> code, so you can make generators with it. Its open-source. It can be
>> used remotely, there are packages around to send code across networks.
>> You can get stuck into a reasonable amount of metadata for a language
>> that isnt written in itself. Anything else you really want to know?
>
> For everything except persistent code (e.g., persistent object state),
> you can use any number of options. However, for persistent object code
> (that is, saving the code behind a method), I think that the new work
> by Ryan Davis and Eric Hodel ¡½ especially the new AST to Ruby
> generator that was featured on RedHanded is probably a very good idea.
> I wouldn't be surprised if you could get the AST, store that, and then
> use the generator to restore and then #eval the resulting code later.

Sometimes, I'd love Object#marshal_io=, to make it save everything
automatically... that would rock.

> -austin
> -- 
> Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
>                * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca
>

-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen / gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org