On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

> I had serious doubts regarding the pertinence of RubyAST (now RubySchema),
> but if you say so... ;-)
> 
I'm also converting to RubySchema so...

Some q's though:

* Is Tuple the place to add methods I want all "nodes" in the AST to have?
* Maybe have all schemas derive from RubySchema and then have
    class RubySchema < Tuple; end
  since Tuple is too general in this context? Or include empty RubySchema
  module? Anyway, we should have a way to add to all RubySchemas/Ast nodes
  without having to add to tuple.

and an opinion:

* IMHO, maybe we should avoid too short names (like M) and call the
RubySchemas by their "full" name (M => Message, IVar => InstanceVariable
etc) and then have the shorthands be aliases (M = Message etc)? Makes
things self-descriptive even if your new to them and if this will be a
"standard" way of representing parsed Ruby programs it might affect not
only the "internals hackers"...

and a comment:

* Is schema commonly used in this context? Is it from Lisp? I'm more used
to "Term"...

Naming is important. ;-)

Regards,

Robert