On 23 août 2013, at 05:16, Gisela Decuzzi wrote:
> Hi Camille!
> Thanks for the details about using the dot.
> I know that for this case is better matching an expression but it sounded
> strange at the begining the behavior inside the block despite of the ``@
As far as I understand, there is no difference between ` and `` when you try to
match a method because there is no such thing as a submethod.
No matter where you recurse in a method, you'll never find another method that
can potentially match.
> I will take a look in the matching.
Good luck.
Stef suggested to see in visualworks if there is a new version.
> Because like that we cannot say that we don't care if we have that piece of
> code and we should repeat the pattern with an or containing the block and
> without it.
What you can do is still to try matching an expression but with an additional
condition.
By the way I forgot to mention the `{ :node | "some smalltalk code here" }
syntax in my last mail: it permits to match only the nodes that satisfy the
"wrapped block".
> But I don't understand if the actual behavior is really a bug or it's a
> feature...
Its more a limitation.
>
>
> 2013/8/21 Camille Teruel <[email protected]>
> Hello Gisela,
>
> On 21 août 2013, at 15:43, Gisela Decuzzi wrote:
>
>> Hello, I'm trying to understand how to define a correct pattern and I'm lost
>> with the cases where I use a method pattern and the desired code is inside a
>> block.
>> In the case where we search (methods) with metavariables and the code is
>> inside a block.
>>
>> An Example:
>>
>> This pattern
>> `a: `aa `b: `bb
>> | `@temps |
>> ``@.Stats.
>> ``@.some size ``@.more.
>> ``@.Stats2.
>
> Putting a dot after the @ means that you want to match statements.
> So '``@.some size' cannot match: 'arg1 size'.
>
>> Does not match with:
>> insideABlock: arg1 part2: arg2
>> |temp1 temp3|
>> [arg1 size].
>> temp1 := arg2 + 3.
>> ^arg2
>
> Then even if you remove the extra dots, the rule won't match the method you
> give.
> This is because this method has no statements matching '``@some size' (even
> if it has a block that has a statement that can).
> So here is a rule that can match your method:
> `a: `aa `b: `bb
> | `@temps |
> `@.stms1.
> [ `@rcv size ].
> `@.stms2.
>
>
>> After looking while I realize that is not matching with
>> part1: arg1 part2: arg2
>> |temp1 temp2 temp3|
>> arg1 size.
>> temp1 := arg2 + 3.
>> ^arg2
>
> This one however can be matched by your rule (without the extra dots).
> I think that you should try to parse expressions instead of full methods
> (RBParseTreeSearcher>>#matches:do: instead of
> RBParseTreeSearcher>>#matchesMethod:do:).
> You could just try to match '`@rcv size': it would succeed in both methods.
>
>>
>> Until I understand:
>> ``@.some size ``@.more.
>> This should mean: anything that sends the message size, doesn't matter if we
>> have something before or after, I think that this expression should match
>> both cases.
>>
>> But maybe I'm missunderstanding the patterns (again).
>
> It should work like that (modulo bugs)
> ` denotes a metavariable
> adding @ means you're looking for a list of elements
> ex: `receiver `@msg: `@arg matches every message
> adding a . means you're looking for a statement (or a list of statement if
> you combine it with @)
> adding # means you're looking for a literal
> adding another ` means that the pattern will be searched recursively in each
> subexpressions even if the top one already matched
> it sometimes leads to infinite loops, but I don't remember exactly when
> ex: in 'foo bar bar' :
> if you search for '`rcv bar' you'll find one match ('foo bar bar')
> if you search for '``rcv bar' you'll find two matches ('foo bar' and 'foo bar
> bar').
> and I think it's all
>
>>
>> Any help with this will be really welcome!
>>
>>
>
>
