Thank you Marcus for the explanation. So now I understand that if I want to analyse existing packages/class/methods/etc in the image, Ring is not a kind of interest.
But as I think about it, if someone uses Ring as a base to analyse environment, then it could be useful to use the same analysis tool for any source, e.g. not loaded packages. Am I right or are the some limitations? Thanks. Juraj On Sep 24, 2014, at 1:28 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Juraj Kubelka <juraj.kube...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Hi! > > I am trying to understand in what scenarios is good to use Ring package > instead of objects of compiled methods, classes and r-packages. It is not > clear to me. > > For example if I want to ask for where a method/class/package is referenced > should I consider the Ring package? > > When I should consider to use Ring? > > > The idea is that Ring models Classes/methods that you want to reason about, > but that are not actually really in the system installed. > This is needed often and everyone implements their own model: Monticello > (MCClassDefiniion), FilePackage (Pseudoclass/PseudoMethod), > RB (RBClass, RBMethod). > Ring is a first step to propose one model that everyone can use who needs to > model code that is not installed in the system. > > e.g. if you want to analyse and mcz package, instead of loading it (with all > the side effects), you could load it as a Ring model. > > Like everything that exists it is not perfect (else it would not exist)... > e.g. we actually should replace PseudoClass and PseudoMethod > by Ring, for example. Any improvement (both to the model or its use) are very > welcome. > > E.g. one thing I am slowly doing is to simplify it (e.g. removing the > RGFactory class) > > Marcus >
