[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ru
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags |
Date: |
Thu, 04 Feb 2016 05:48:07 +0200 |
> From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 02:46:45 +0300
>
> Just noticed this. attr_X calls will not, as a rule, be inside a method
> definition (which is what 'def X' is).
>
> If an attr_X call is inside a method definition, we're unlikely to be
> able to make much sense of it. Most likely, the arguments will be local
> variables, not Symbol literals. It's also likely that the target of this
> call in that kind of situation won't be the current class.
>
> Anyway, the example shouldn't put attr_X calls inside a method
> definition, or it gives an impression that we handle this situation
> intentionally, or somehow differently from the usual case. Whereas we
> could as well skip those tags altogether (but we don't really have to,
> as long as we only generate non-qualified tags, and check that every
> argument is a Symbol literal, i.e. it starts with a colon).
Please modify the test files as you see fit, and tell me what the tags
should be.
> > + alias_method :qux, :tee, attr_accessor :bogus
>
> This one is a bit weird as well:
>
> - An alias_method call with three arguments will raise an ArgumentError.
It's there to test the algorithm, which should not tag the bogus
accessor.
> - If it didn't, the 'attr_accessor :bogus' calls would raise a
> SyntaxError, due to evaluation rules. However, an attr_X call can be
> inside an expression, such as:
>
> class C
> puts(attr_accessor :bogus)
> end
>
> This is not a typical case, we don't need to handle it, but it's odd to
> see a test case that implies that this example is invalid, and we
> somehow prohibit it. Hopefully, this observation will allow you to
> simplify some code.
I'm not sure how this simplifies things. The point was that a comma
doesn't reset the mini-state machine to the state where it is once
again ready to see attr_accessor. If you are saying there are other
situations like that, please describe them.
IOW, does etags handle the above intentionally invalid code correctly?
It should.
Thanks.
- Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/02/03
- Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/02/04
- Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/02/04
- Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/02/05
- Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/02/05
- Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/02/05
- Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/02/05
- Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/02/05
- Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/02/05
- Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/02/05
- Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/02/05