2015-10-28 16:19 GMT+01:00 stepharo <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: I see this is annoying that comments are not polymorphic. They could be :) - an empty RBMethodNode with a comment attribute, or - a comment: message send with the comment as a parameter.Would be nice to have a tree node ClassComment You have RGCommentDefinition, no?
And RBComment So we should probably use them.
I'm thorn because on one hand I would like to be able to express a visitor for the complete compilation unit and in particular package and extensions but may be we do not need to have this nodes and just have an object. I would be favor to have a nice and full AST representation of the compilation unit.The static representation of Pharo program can really be improved. I still want a full package.RGPackage? Or a unified AST-like structure? Even an AST is not that cool as a program representation.
Stef
