[Cuis-dev] Recent changes to Encoder (update 4156?)

[Phil B]

Nahuel,

Thanks for the response... it gave me a chance to calm down and take a
closer look at what you changed...

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 5:51 PM Nahuel Garbezza <n.garbezza at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Phil,
>
> As you were mentioning, the update #4156 enforces that
> #noteSourceRange:forNode: should always receive an interval instead of a
> collection. Before this update it worked with both intervals and collection
> of intervals, kind of a "weird polymorphism" case (because the object was
> only put into a dictionary, we didn't have any issues). When I looked at
> all the senders of that message, I saw that we are always passing a single
> range instead of a collection, that's why I went ahead with the change.
>

My issue with these changes since they were originally made was that the
interface and internal representation, while simple, are rather ugly IMO.
It looks like your changes are addressing the ambiguous interface (to a
degree) but not the internal representation, which senders must still be
aware of.  My code being outside of the changesets gets to see the ugliness
first hand...


>
> I'm not sure if I understood correctly the issue you are having. Have you
> tried using #addMultiRange:for: message? this one is for the nodes that
> should have collections of source ranges (the nodes that have multiple
> occurrences on the same AST, like variables). The reason for having two
> messages for adding source ranges is for the user to explicitly decide when
> to report a multi range vs. report a single range. Another option could be
> to have a message like #noteSourceRanges:forNode: (note the plural) to be
> used with a collection of source ranges, and report all source ranges at
> once.
>

The issue is the parallel, yet incompatible, accessors of the same ivar
(sourceRanges) depending on whether you want a singular range or a multi
range.  As a result, the sender of the setter and getter must be
coordinated on a per-node basis or you will have problems... which is what
was happening with my code.


> Happy to discuss alternatives to consider all possible use cases!
>

Why not just convert everything to use multi ranges (i.e. internally
*always* store a collection in sourceRanges) and eliminate the issue of
needing to be aware of the internal representation entirely?


>
> Thanks,
> Nahuel
>
>
Thanks,
Phil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cuis.st/mailman/archives/cuis-dev/attachments/20200528/751fbba6/attachment.htm>