Issue #21618 has been updated by Earlopain (Earlopain _).
I'm guessing what you are asking is to get the Prism Ruby API for the prism C parser used by the Ruby interpreter to parse Ruby code?
Ripper for all its faults was able to do just that. I understand that there are implementation concerns, I am just asking for something to make that possible again. I don't think parsing exactly (not just almost the same) as the ruby I am running as is an unreasonable request. You should always bump all gems on ruby version updates. But prism is not patch level aware (that is fine) so even if you do `RUBY_VERSION` it is not perfect. 3.2.0 I think had a bug with nested anonymous block parameters that had a pretty big impact. Now I am required to also bump prism with every patch version. If I run older patch versions, I would be have to run older prism versions from around the time my patch version was released.
From the description it seems a (the?) main concern is that Prism.parse(code) etc use the latest version by default
Yeah, I am not a fan of that behaviour as well. I guess this is intential, similar to how the unversioned parser translator class also uses the latest version. But changing that was not really what I was asking for. ---- To be clear, patch versions of ruby should never contain any big syntax changes. The impact of using any prism version that understands my major/minor version should be minimal in the majority of cases. But, I would prefer to just have something where I don't even have to worry about such things. `Prism.parse("foo", version: RUBY_VERSION)` works good enough but differently to the real intention to the point where it makes me uncomfortable. ---------------------------------------- Bug #21618: Allow to use the build-in prism version to parse code https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21618#change-114746 * Author: Earlopain (Earlopain _) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Prism is a multi-version parser, which is a great feature. If one calls `Prism.parse("foo")`, it will always use the latest version prism knows about. This may or may not be the version that is currently executing. This is problematic when one wants to introspect code the same way that the currently running ruby version would. Consider that some syntax will be disallowed in the next ruby version. I would have to specify the ruby version I want to parse as in order to not run into syntax errors: `Prism.parse("foo", version: RUBY_VERSION)`. But doing so is not feasable because `prism` is distributed out of sync with ruby itself. If the user already has prism in their lockfile, the user may run a prism version that doesn't yet know about lets say ruby 4.0 and thus raise. Similarly, it may parse as an older patch version that has subtle behaviour differences. `ripper` does not have this issue because it is always tied to the ruby version and it is not distributed as a gem, so what the user has will always be exactly what ruby shipped with. I wish for a similar API that utilizes the prism version bundled with ruby itself. Libraries like `rails` have moved from ripper to prism because of its superior developer experience but it risks breaking in unexpected ways with new `prism` versions that know about more recent syntax. `error_highlight` for example also suffers from the same defect. It seems like prism currently has 34 methods that optionally take a version (per the rbi file). Many of these are trivial helper methods like `Prism.parse_success?` (does the parse result have any errors?). I would be happy with supporting only the minimal functions like `Prism.parse` and `Prism.parse_file`. Currently I don't have a use-case for any of the other methods. Pretty much just functions to mirror `RubyVM::InstructionSequence.compile_file` and `RubyVM::InstructionSequence.compile`. It would be optimal if I would be able to transparently call `Prism.parse("foo", version: "current")` (or maybe even have an unspecified version mean the build-in prism version) but I am not sure how feasable that is since I'm pretty sure logic for this would have to live in ruby itself. @kddnewton does this feature request make sense? Do you have any other ideas/inputs? -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/