2 May
2013
2 May
'13
12:17 a.m.
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
2 May
2 May
2:16 p.m.
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.
I do not know.
May be because we do not keep the formatting information.
Stef
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
9 May
9 May
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."
4245
days inactive
4253
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Chris Cunningham -
stephane ducasse -
Tudor Girba