Re: [Geany] Scoped Ruby declarations, with a hackish patch

On 7 September 2012 04:58, Colomban Wendling lists.ban@herbesfolles.org wrote:

Hi guys,

I saw that the ruby parser don't properly generate tags declarations like:

    class Foo::Bar
    end

which should generate a tag "Bar" with the scope "Foo"; but it generates a tag "Foo" and simply ignores "Bar". This seems to apply to modules, classes and methods at least -- almost everything.

So I wanted to fix that. Unfortunately the scoping code in CTags don't really support to easily put several scopes at the same "level", e.g. if you want to push several scope you gotta handle the popping yourself. And since there is one single block end, it's tricky to do.

Since I was way too lazy (and didn't even found a good implementation) to fix that, I just did it the dirty way: reading the whole "Foo::Bar"

This is of course what C++ does when the declarations are not visible eg

a::b::f(){}; makes a function 'a::b::f' if the declarations of a and b are not visible (eg in a closed .hpp file), if they are visible it puts f inside the declaration of b. Compare the symbols pane entrys for the definitions of f() and g() in the attached.

I'm not a rubyist but I assume that Foo doesn't need to be declared before Bar in the above example and thats the problem. From the C++ example what you would need to do is "autodeclare" Foo (as what?) so you had somewhere to put Bar.

as a single tag name ("Foo.Bar") and tuning the code registering the tag to split this on the last ".", putting the left part (if any) in the scope. Patch attached. This is quite dirty, but works fine unless a legitimate tag may include a "." in its name, which doesn't seem the case currently looking at the parser.

Note that Ruby isn't the only language that allows such kind of scoping. For example, Vala allows to prefix stuff with a namespace -- and there is the same problem here.

But it is statically declared so it should work like C++ should it not?

Cheers Lex

So, especially Nick, what do you guys think of this? Is this patch too dirty? Do somebody have a better idea? Or is this too dirty and "we don't care because nobody writes ruby anyway"? In one word: opinions?

Thanks, Colomban

---

Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany