> On 27 Feb 2015, at 23:11, Thierry Goubier <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Le 27/02/2015 20:26, Marcus Denker a écrit :
>>
>>> On 27 Feb 2015, at 19:48, Thierry Goubier <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Markus,
>>>
>>> if I understand correctly some of the possibilities:
>>>
>>> - I can use RBParseTreeSearcher / RBParseTreeRewriter on the twin AST.
>>>
>>> (any example how to install / invalidate the twin AST after an effective
>>> RBParseTreeRewriter operation?)
>>>
>> Yes, but I would do it on a copy… that is, do the change in run:with:in: on
>> a copy, generate code from that,
>> keep the original.
>> An AST that follows the text is kind of nice for e.g. navigation.
>>
>>> - Any change to the Twin AST is reflected in the method bytecode (as long
>>> as one does invalidate).
>>>
>> yes.
>>
>>> This would mean being able to put tracing code with RB patterns, no? And
>>> without having to do a recompilation of the traced method?
>>>
>>
>> Yes. At first I want to have something simple: a MOP based on the MetaLinks.
>> But one could do the same with RB transformations:
>> put them as annotation on the method, then on recompile take them into
>> account.
>
> Maybe I'm not understanding everything, so would that be correct:
>
> - If I inject additional behavior with meta-links, then they just annotate
> the AST and do not really change it.
>
> Now, since writing dedicated ast visitors takes quite some code, what could
> work is to have a RBParseTreeMetaWriter: use a RB pattern to find the right
> ast node, and add whatever meta-link there.
>
Yes. The experiment right now does not use the rewriter, but we should have a
look.
Marcus
