Re: [Cardinal-dev] test, &c.

[Pat Eyler]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Phil Tomson wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Pat Eyler wrote:
>
> >
> > On a more parrot-like note, have you looked at miniperl at all?  They seem
> > to have a well tested base to work from.  It might prove a fertile field
> > for reading, stealing ideas, etc.
> >
> > It may also be worthwhile for use to start now on the whole lexing,
> > parsing, AST bit.  Although parrot won't be ready for call_method for a
> > while yet, we could still get to the point where we have a solid front end
> > by the time parrot's ready for us.
>
> I think we can build on RUTH (see the code at:
> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=26000
> )

cool, I'll go there today and try to read until my wife yells at me for
'spending too much time on the computer' ;)

>
[cut the notes from the README]
> Its a cheato-RubyInRuby parser since it looks like one but actually uses
> Matz's Ruby Interpreter's parser and then simply transforms the output.
> Advantage of this is that it parses exactly the same programs as MRI
> parses(since it uses the same parser). Disadvantage is that it relies on
> C code,isn't customizable etc.
>

That's kind of my reasoning for getting at sRuby.  I'd like to be able to
look at as small a portion of ruby that would be needed to lex, parse, and
tie to a backend so that the rest could be written in ruby.  (My dream is
grc, with a small c core and a larger ruby/sRuby stage 2.)

>
> >
> > A last bit to think about (inspired by miniperl and sRuby), what do you
> > think we need for a minimal subset of ruby?
>
> Good question.  I guess I want to take a look at RUTH to see what's there
> and what's not.  I think the advantage here is that RUTH should parse the
> same programs the the current RUby does since it uses Matz's lex/yacc.
>
> I get the idea that Ruth is sort of a kludge, but I think it might be
> useful for this situation.  From some email exchanges with Dan Sugalski it
> seems that ultimately we should write our parser using Parrot's native
> parser tools, but since they're not close to being done yet we should
> consider that the interim solution (using RUTH?) will be temporary.
>
> So I guess we need to do some evaluation to determine which Ruby-in-Ruby
> parser is most advanced at this point.
>

Sounds good.

> >
> > -pate
> >
> > ps. I can meet you on irc at irc.openprojects.net #ruby-lang (or
> > #cardinal) if you'd like to talk rather than trade email.
>
> I have to admit that I've never used IRC (where have I been for the last
> several years? ;-)  How would you suggest I get started?  I'm on Linux,
> any suggestions for an IRC client?

GUI or not?

xchat and mozilla chat both work well on the GUI side (at least with
gnome)

bitchX seems to be the standard for CLI

>
> Phil
>
>