How about: #newAst & #cachedAst? Cheers, Doru
> On May 3, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopol...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > method newAst ? > > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras > <vonbecm...@gmail.com> wrote: > a "parse tree" is not equal to an "ast"(abstract syntax tree) > but its difficult to find a name for an ast that is not cached. > maybe > parsedAst > parseAst > .... > > > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Richard Sargent > <richard.sarg...@gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Hi. > > Maybe #parseSourceCode would be better name for #parseTree. > > I've always found it good advice to avoid using a verb phrase to name > something which does not entail some kind of action. > #parseSourceCode realy reads like something which would parse the source > code. #parseTree also has that effect, except for the lack of a tree to parse. > > > > 2018-05-02 16:33 GMT+03:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr>: > > > > On 27 Apr 2018, at 21:36, Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> wrote: > > > > Marcus Denker-4 wrote > >> I will add comments… > > > > I got confused by this again and created an issue: > > https://pharo.manuscript.com/f/cases/21806/Document-Difference-between-ast-and-parseTree > > > > And then Peter Uhnak reminded me on Discord about this thread. I'm happy to > > add the comments, but not sure I understand the issue well enough. IIUC #ast > > is cached, but #parseTree is not. What I don't understand is the purpose of > > this difference and when one would use one over the other. > > the cached #ast is for one interesting for speed (that is, in situations > where you ask for it often). > > The other use-case is if you want to annotate the AST and keep that > annotation around (till the next > image save, but you can subscribe to ASTCacheReset and re-install the AST in > the cache after cleaning. > (This is used by MetaLinks to make sure they survive image restart). > > The last thing that it provides is that we do have a quite powerful mapping > between bytecode/text/context > and the AST. Regardless how you navigate, you get the same object. > > e.g. even this one works: > > [ 1+2 ] sourceNode == thisContext method ast blockNodes first > > > For example, > > when, if ever, would a user want to access a CM's #ast (as opposed to > > #parseTree) and could modifying it create problems? > > > > Modification is a problem, yes.. code that wants to modify the AST without > making sure the compiledMethod is in sync later > should use #parseTree. > > Code that does not modify the AST (or makes sure to compile it after > modification) is free to use #ast. > or if you want to annotate the AST (which is a modification, after all). > > This is not perfect (not at all…) but the simplest solution to get (to some > extend) what you would have if the system would have > a real persistent, first class AST… > > To be improved. The ASTCache with it’s naive “lets just cache everything till > the next image save” was done with the idea to see > when it would show that it is too naive… for that it worked amazingly well > till now. > > Marcus > > > > > > -- > Bernardo E.C. > > Sent from a cheap desktop computer in South America. > > > > -- > > Guille Polito > Research Engineer > > Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille > CRIStAL - UMR 9189 > French National Center for Scientific Research - http://www.cnrs.fr > > Web: http://guillep.github.io > Phone: +33 06 52 70 66 13 -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"
