9 May
2013
9 May
'13
2:44 p.m.
Hi,
Great. Let us know how it works.
Concerning your printOn: question, you would like to do what you say in order to see the
corresponding code inspecting the AST nodes, right? In this case, and especially if you
are using the Moose image, you should simply extend the GTInspector with your dedicated
presentation.
For example, for the Smalltalk AST I already have such an extension. To see it:
- execute: (Object>>#printOn:) parseTree explore
- choose the second tab
Cheers,
Doru
On May 2, 2013, at 12:17 AM, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi. I'm starting to need to parse Java code, and
am going to be using the PetitJava as found on SmalltalkHub. In particular, I need access
to the AST from this parsing.
So, I am going to be filling in the AST generation that is found there to cover more of
the parsed syntax, following along the lines already laid out there.
A question I have, though, is why none of our AST models seems to print out the
'code' by default? This model, and I believe the RB Smalltalk AST, neither have a
printOn: defined, so that when you inspect/explore the results, it is rather unpleasant to
find out what the model is of. In some past models, I have included a default #printOn:
to the model parts,so that when exploring the parsed results, it is easier to see which
parts of the code you are looking at. (Most recently while delving into a 10,000+ line
COBOL program). Personally, I find it much more enjoyable.
Is there a reason to not do this? I am already adding this to the PetitJava code as it
makes it easier to see what I'm doing, but I can package it independently if anyone
objects.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."