[ruby-core:90367] [Ruby trunk Feature#14844] Future of RubyVM::AST?

[lucasbuchala@gmail.com]

Issue #14844 has been updated by lucasbuchala (Lucas Buchala).


Hello. Sorry to step in with a frivolous suggestion, but I just noticed the name `RubyVM::AbstractSyntaxTree` in the RC1 announcement and was surprised by the length of the word when the shorter name "AST" would suffice.

mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote:
> [...] This fact can also be seen from `RubyVM::InstructionSequence`. (Its has a very long name, which also represents non-casual use, so it may be better to rename `RubyVM::AST` with `AbstractSyntaxTree`.)

Following this name practice/convention is really necessary and beneficial?


----------------------------------------
Feature #14844: Future of RubyVM::AST? 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14844#change-75477

* Author: rmosolgo (Robert Mosolgo)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
Hi! Thanks for all your great work on the Ruby language. 

I saw the new RubyVM::AST module in 2.6.0-preview2 and I quickly went to try it out. 

I'd love to have a well-documented, user-friendly way to parse and manipulate Ruby code using the Ruby standard library, so I'm pretty excited to try it out. (I've been trying to learn Ripper recently, too: https://ripper-preview.herokuapp.com/, https://rmosolgo.github.io/ripper_events/ .)

Based on my exploration, I opened a small PR on GitHub with some documentation: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/1888

I'm curious though, are there future plans for this module? For example, we might: 

- Add more details about each node (for example, we could expose the names of identifiers and operators through the node classes)
- Document each node type 

I see there is a lot more information in the C structures that we could expose, and I'm interested to help out if it's valuable. What do you think? 



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/