17 Jun
2016
17 Jun
'16
2:28 p.m.
Hi Jan,
2016-06-17 14:20 GMT+02:00 Jan Vrany <jan.vrany(a)fit.cvut.cz>cz>:
Hi,
yes, that's perfectly fine!
Thanks.
However, calling it "a complete Ruby parser done
with SmaCC" is
bit too optimistic. It is not complete and never was. Ruby's quite
challenging with that respect (well, in many in fact :-)
I saw that there are a lot of unimplemented stuff in the grammar... or at
least messages saying so :)
If it's for analysis (i.e., you want to build
FAMIX model and then analyse
it),
If I were you I'd just use a Ruby parser in Ruby (there are many), let it
spit out
sexprs and parse them in Smalltalk and make FAMIX model out of that.
If you manage to fix the SmaCC parser, I;d be __very__ interested. Please
let me know.
I will if I do.
Good luck!
Thanks,
Thierry
Jan
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Thierry Goubier <
thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Serge,
one could ask Jan Vrany about it :). Jan, is that Ok if someone reuse this
code (as in adding a Ruby parser to the SmaCC collection) ?
Thierry
2016-06-17 12:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>om>:
I remember there was some interests here about
analyzing Ruby programs
with MOOSE, and apparently there is a complete Ruby parser done with
SmaCC (Smalltalk/X version):
https://swing.fit.cvut.cz/projects/smallruby
Look inside the svn repository to find the code. I dunno the licence.
Regards,
--
Serge Stinckwich
UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC)
Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk
http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev