debug inspect

[rubydesign]

great stuff , thanks.

This just reduced my 10 (hand coded ast-) classes to nothing. Great :-)

In doing that i was obviously using the handy s() function. But also i wrote a modified Node.inspect
that gets included with the s() and prints out the node in the exact same way as the code needs it.

The effect being that one can copy paste the failed test output as an expected result (it's ruby code, yeah)

I found that very handy and could make a pull request. Code is here https://github.com/dancinglightning/ast/commit/fdb4d8cb7a36601d76750dab658893e30e85c8c9

[whitequark]

Ideally, to_s would return the current representation and inspect would return yours; however, I don't know how many people rely on the return values being what they are, and it's probably not worth a major version bump.

[mbj]

Data point: I do not rely on AST::Node#to_s or #inspect format in my projects.

[whitequark]

What about @bbatsov?

[rubydesign]

my idea was that you only get it when you want it.
One could decouple it from including the Sexp and make different module if there are concerns.

[whitequark]

It is definitely a past design failure in ast.

[bbatsov]

I'm on the road right now. Will be back home tomorrow and I'll take a look
then.

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015, whitequark notifications@github.com wrote:

It is definitely a past design failure in ast.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6 (comment).

Best Regards,
Bozhidar Batsov

http://www.batsov.com

[rubydesign]

After having used this a bit more, i actually reverted to the multiline version. (wasn't before)
It now outputs exactly what is written in the module comment.
Even in ruby code, that can still be pasted, as the comma at the end continues the expression.
(though i personally changed to text files, less clutter)
https://github.com/dancinglightning/ast/commit/846eb00aeb6d227ffbae7a3f5c3b286f60d11667

[bbatsov]

Ideally, to_s would return the current representation and inspect would return yours; however, I don't know how many people rely on the return values being what they are, and it's probably not worth a major version bump.

I'm not using this is as well, so I think making this change is unlikely to affect many (any) users.

[whitequark]

OK. I will accept a PR implementing this as per #6 (comment).

[rubydesign]

ok, do you want it in the sexp module (as my code is now), or should i change the node.to_sexp to output ruby code ?

[whitequark]

No, no modules. Just inspect (outputting the code) and to_s (aliased to to_sexp).

[rubydesign]

i guess this is clear