daz wrote:

>"Phil Tomson" wrote:
>  
>
>>Mark Hubbart: wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On Feb 20, 2004, at 10:51 AM, Mark wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Does anyone know where I can find Ruth? I've tried looking on
>>>>Rubyforge and RAA but haven't been able to find it.
>>>>Thanks in Advance.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>It is part of the RubyVM project, on sourceforge.
>>>http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=26000
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>But that appears to be an old version.  A newer version was announced last
>>August (http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/79936)
>>but it's not available at the location given in that link.
>>
>>Phil
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Still temporary, but this worked just now.
>
>V 0.10
>
>http://www.pronovomundo.com/ruth/
>
>
>  
>
Thanks, that link works. Though the file linked there is misnamed. It 
has the extension .tar.gz even though it's just a tar file.

It seems that the choice for a front end is between Ripper and Ruth. 
Both'll need a bit of development before they can be used, and neither 
is documented.

Personally I think Ruth is the better choice since it has fewer 
dependencies (Ripper needs bison and gperf) and it's interface seems to 
be simpler.

Though it has the problem that when parsing a method definition using 
the standard parse method there's no way to find out what parameters the 
methods takes. However I think there might be lower level methods which 
can be used in this case.


ISTM the best bet would be to design the compiler so that the parser can 
be swapped easily. Looking at the archives for Cardinal I noticed there 
was talk of Rite having a seperate parser component. Being able to use 
that as a parser would be very useful.


I'm going to set up a project on Rubyforge in order to work on this.

--
Mark Sparshatt