2012-11-20 21:21:03 -05:00
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
Pry#retrieve_line:
|
|
|
|
|
- ! 'This method is much too long and complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no idea how it got to be like this but it''s terrifying, somebody fix it,
|
|
|
|
|
please. Kyrylo?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
Pry#binding_stack:
|
|
|
|
|
- ! 'Should binding_stack be turned into a fully-fledged object? Keeping it as an
|
|
|
|
|
array seems a bit low-level somehow..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
|
2012-12-02 08:18:14 -05:00
|
|
|
gist:
|
|
|
|
|
- ! "currently gisting (as well as 'play' and a few other commands) is too complicated,
|
|
|
|
|
we must remember -m, -c, -i, -k and so on.Instead, if those commands could act similarly
|
|
|
|
|
to `show-source` and infer the object type \nfrom the 'name' of the object it would
|
|
|
|
|
make things a lot more streamlined.\n\nHowever, although we have ways of identifying
|
|
|
|
|
and disambiguating between methods and classes and commands, and potentially file
|
|
|
|
|
names, we don't have any syntax for specifying input expressions, output expressions,
|
|
|
|
|
\nor history. Do we need syntax for these ? are they rare enough not to bother optimising?\n\nPrecedence
|
|
|
|
|
for names \n* classes/modules (e.g Pry::Code)\n* methods (e.g Pry#run_command)\n*
|
|
|
|
|
commands (e.g show-source)\n* files (e.g alpha.rb)\n\nExplicit flags (do these
|
|
|
|
|
need their own syntax to avoid flags?)\n-i input expressions\n-o output expressions\n--hist
|
|
|
|
|
history\n\n"
|
