groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ed Clark <eacl...@ameritech.net>
Subject Re: help with an AST
Date Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:02:45 GMT
Hi Paul,

Unfortunately that didn't help.  I still get the error:

     BUG! exception in phase 'class generation' in source unit 'CtxTest2.groovy' Operation:

(<assignment operator>:  "=" ) not supported

I put those two lines right after my top level "visit" call. Thinking
about it, the class node being visited is that of the top level
script - the classes that are being transformed are not explicitly
being visited.  Perhaps the "visit" at the top level script will descend
into the inner classes?

On the off chance that it won't, I also tried something I found online:

VariableScopeVisitor scopeVisitor = new VariableScopeVisitor( sourceUnit)
sourceUnit.AST.classes.each {
      println '11111111111111111 visiting class ' + it
      scopeVisitor.visitClass( it)
}

(Obviously, the println is there to check that the xformed classes are visited
explicitly; which they are.)

The error is still there.

I also saw warnings online that you don't want to visit the same scope twice.
If a visit to the top level script implicitly visits the classes defined within,
then this would be a double visit to the xformed classes - I'm guessing.

(Perhaps I need to look at the VariableScopeVisitor implementation to better
understand what's going on.)

Other thoughts/suggestions?

Regards,

Ed


On 02/16/2017 04:41 PM, Paul King wrote:
> Do you have something like:
>
> VariableScopeVisitor scopeVisitor = new VariableScopeVisitor(source)
> scopeVisitor.visitClass(cNode)
>
> for each of your closure(s)? Where cNode is a closure's classNode?
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Ed Clark <eaclark@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> Ok, a little more headbanging and I seem to have gotten farther (maybe?).
>> At least the error message has changed.  Now I'm getting:
>>
>> BUG! exception in phase 'class generation' in source unit 'CtxTest2.groovy'
>> Operation: (<assignment operator>:  "=" ) not supported
>>
>> Searching hasn't helped with this one.
>>
>> The xform-ed code looks good -- in fact, if I type the code into a separate
>> groovyConsole, it will run.  (The console AST generation works up thru
>> the Instruction Selection phase, obviously.)
>>
>> I'm guessing it's still with how I'm setting up the scoping (or how I'm not
>> setting up the scoping).
>>
>> Ideas, please?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>> On 02/14/2017 12:58 PM, Ed Clark wrote:
>>> On 02/14/2017 12:16 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 14.02.2017 12:41, Ed Clark wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jochen,
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I've been slowly making progress on this; kind of feels like
>>>>> bashing my
>>>>> head against a wall at times, but I have made a small hole in the wall
>>>>> through
>>>>> which I can see my goal. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> making holes my lead to brain damage.. then things get really hard to
>>>> solve ;)
>>> Maybe I'm too late, and that's why things aren't coming together ;)
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Specifically, I haven't figured out how to inject a variable into the
>>>>> scope of an outer
>>>>> with's closure that can be used by code in an interior with's closure.
>>>>> For example,
>>>>> consider
>>>>>
>>>>>    myCtx1.with {
>>>>>        __outerCtx1 = null            // injected statement
>>>>>        __currCtx1 = myCtx1       // injected statement
>>>>>        .... some code ...
>>>>>        myCtx2.with {
>>>>>            __outerCtx2 = __currCtx1   // injected statement <--- 
doesn't
>>>>> work
>>>>>            __currCtx2 = myCtx2          // injected statement
>>>>
>>>> where is __currCtx1 and __outerCtx1 coming from? Are they supposed to be
>>>> new local variables? in that case you will have to add a
>>>> DeclarationStatement, not just an assignment to a VariableExpression.
>>>> Otherwise the compiler will thnk they are dynamic properties and tries to
>>>> resolve them against the context.
>>>>
>>>> as for the logic behind __outerCtxN... with number wouldn't have to be
>>>> null I would have said you should think of using getOwner on Closure
>>>>
>>> Hmmm, I'm close to that, but not quite the same.  I was trying
>>>
>>>     ExpressionStatement currCtx = new ExpressionStatement(
>>>         new DeclarationExpression (
>>>             new VariableExpression( "__currCtx$levelcnt"),
>>>             new Token( Types.ASSIGNMENT_OPERATOR, "=", -1, -1),
>>>             new MethodCallExpression( new VariableExpression( 'this'),
>>> 'getDelegate', new ArgumentListExpression())
>>>         )
>>>     )
>>>
>>> Would a DeclarationStatment act differently from an ExpressionStatement
>>> with an embedded
>>> DeclarationExpression?  If my foggy memory is correct, I wrote my code
>>> after looking at the
>>> AST displayed for a short test script in groovyConsole.
>>>
>>> Plus, if foggy memory serves, I tried using getOwner and it came back with
>>> the closure being
>>> owned by the test script, not the object doing the with.  Calling
>>> getDelegate gave me the object.
>>> If foggy memory serves.
>>>
>>> I also tried playing around with setClosureSharedVariable( true) and
>>> putReferencedLocalVariable()
>>> without success.  But, those were somewhat blind stabs in the dark, so I
>>> might not have been
>>> using them correctly.
>>>
>>> Looking at the AST generated by groovyConsole, my transform looks like it
>>> is working, but
>>> the compiler complains about things not being in scope (in the inner
>>> closure).  So, I'm doing
>>> something wrong with setting up the scoping.
>>>
>>>>   bye Jochen
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>


Mime
View raw message