Hi Tim, The RB ast has a specific method for finding the right node: in AltBrowser, I use ast bestNodeFor: aTarget selectionInterval.
For the second case (parse what is selected), you may want to look into SmaCC: it has specific entry points (used for refactoring) to try all possible starts in a parser for a given piece of text and returning all the possible correct asts. As a hand-writen parser, the RBParser can't do that unless you add the necessary entry points by hand and hack around the error handling, because most of the parse attempts end on an error (as they should). Regards, Thierry 2017-09-01 8:50 GMT+02:00 Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works>: > Marcus - I'd be interested in how you thought to solve this. > > My solution seems to work - but it's not the most elegant. Retrying lots > of different ways like I show, smacks a bit of desperation (this said, it > is quite compact). > > Apart from that - I was actually interested in thoughts on the parse > method - the onError naming is a bit misleading compared to other methods > in the image. I wonder if it should be called something like > "onErrorMerge:" to signal that it's going to reuse the results? > > Stef - with regards to broken source, my proposed solution reuses what is > already there - thus if you highlight specific code, it reverts to the > original strategy and tries to compile just that code. This bugs me however > - so if you highlight nothing, it tries to compile the source multiple > ways, I drop down to chopping the source up to where your cursor is - which > seems like a decent cheap strategy. > > I don't know if our parser is able to recover from simple errors and just > have error nodes in the ast, and whether the #bestNodeFor method then > ignored error nodes... this is what I think Dolphin used to do. > > Tim > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 31 Aug 2017, at 19:11, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr> wrote: > > > > > >> On 31 Aug 2017, at 19:07, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> > wrote: > >>> I’m looking for some feedback on the usage of RBParser>>#parseMethod: > onError:. > >>> > >>> I am looking at ways of improving the way we edit code - and making > things work (as least for me - but maybe for everyone) a bit more like > IntelliJ where they have some great code operations and very good keyboard > support. We are certainly close, but at times feel a bit clumsy - which is > a shame as we have far better infrastructure to support equivalent > features. So I thought I would have a go. > >> > >> Excellent!!! > >> > >> > >>> Anyway - step one (which I think I’ve come close on), was to teach > senders/implementors to look at the AST so you don’t have to highlight > exactly what you want to search on - instead it can infer from your cursor… > however my next step was to improve how we can select code to ease > refactoring, bracketing etc… > >> > >> Yes but we have to handle broken code then. > >> Did you check how smart suggestions did it for code that compiled? > >> > > > > I looked some weeks ago and made some notes what to do… but I fear this > has to wait for next week, > > there is no way that I can do anything till ESUG… > > > > Marcus > > >
