Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 12:36:25 +0300
> 
> >>> +      alias_method :qux, :tee, attr_accessor :bogus
> >>
> >> This one is a bit weird as well:
> >>
> >> - An alias_method call with three arguments will raise an ArgumentError.
> >
> > It's there to test the algorithm, which should not tag the bogus
> > accessor.
> 
> Why is it bogus, though?

Because its syntax is invalid.

> For instance, these examples are syntactically valid and would result in 
> the generation of the method 'foo':
> 
> class C
>    puts(attr_accessor :foo)
> end
> 
> class C
>    1 + 2; attr_reader :bar
> end
> 
> We don't really need to support them, but actively fighting against them 
> seems odd.

We don't fight them.  The above 2 examples work as expected, please
try them (if you didn't already).

The example which is in the test file specifically tests the handling
of stuff that follows a comma after alias_method, since that requires
some logic I wanted to be sure I got right.

> Point is, the example code is syntactically invalid. etags doesn't need 
> to handle that kind of code at all, right?

No, but I wanted to be sure the invalid code doesn't adversely affect
valid code further in the file.

> It would be better to get a syntactically-valid example, if we an
> find one.

If you can, by all means.  As I don't speak Ruby, I just went with the
simplest one I could throw together.