... I've been thinking about this for a little while, but, would any of you
find it useful to have ruby be able to provide you with the source of a
function ...
I could see a number of uses. Including being able to modify the function at
run time, or to be able to see the parameter list ... or other things.
Anyways, I was thinking of something like:
func_body = Object.method( :to_s ).src
func_body.replace( "\* 3", "\* 4" )
Object.class_eval( func_body )
... what do you think?
j.
Quoting Jeff Wood <jeff.darklight@gmail.com>:
... I've been thinking about this for a little while, but, would
any of you find it useful to have ruby be able to provide you with
the source of a function ...
... what do you think?
* What's the best way to treat methods not written in Ruby?
* Why not an abstract syntax tree rather than a flat string?
-mental
... I've been thinking about this for a little while, but, would any of you
find it useful to have ruby be able to provide you with the source of a
function ...
You already can do that with ruby2c and ZenHacks.
I could see a number of uses. Including being able to modify the function at
run time, or to be able to see the parameter list ... or other things.Anyways, I was thinking of something like:
func_body = Object.method( :to_s ).src
func_body.replace( "\* 3", "\* 4" )
Object.class_eval( func_body )
... what do you think?
MetaRuby is rewriting Ruby in itself. When we're done you can get the source for Object#to_s, but we haven't gotten that far yet.
On Nov 1, 2005, at 1:16 PM, Jeff Wood wrote:
--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04
The Zen Spider has done some work on this :
http://blog.zenspider.com/archives/2005/02/rubytoruby.html.
You might find it interesting 
Yep, that's the second link to the Zen stuff ...
I went and looked at things, looks like what I'm after ...
Thanks all.
j.
On 11/1/05, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
On Nov 1, 2005, at 1:16 PM, Jeff Wood wrote:
> ... I've been thinking about this for a little while, but, would
> any of you
> find it useful to have ruby be able to provide you with the source
> of a
> function ...You already can do that with ruby2c and ZenHacks.
> I could see a number of uses. Including being able to modify the
> function at
> run time, or to be able to see the parameter list ... or other things.
>
> Anyways, I was thinking of something like:
>
> func_body = Object.method( :to_s ).src
>
> func_body.replace( "\* 3", "\* 4" )
>
> Object.class_eval( func_body )
>
> ... what do you think?MetaRuby is rewriting Ruby in itself. When we're done you can get
the source for Object#to_s, but we haven't gotten that far yet.--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04
--
"http://ruby-lang.org -- do you ruby?"
Jeff Wood
There's also SCRIPT_LINES__, which captures all your 'require' and
'load's in a hash (except for C modules):
http://redhanded.hobix.com/inspect/whoaScript_lines__.html
AegisThorne@gmail.com wrote:
The Zen Spider has done some work on this :
http://blog.zenspider.com/archives/2005/02/rubytoruby.html\.You might find it interesting
