Issue #16142 has been updated by byroot (Jean Boussier).
So what would be a good name?
What about `position`? I think it goes well together with `location`.
----------------------------------------
Feature #16142: Implement code_range in Proc and Method
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16142#change-106130
* Author: okuramasafumi (Masafumi OKURA)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
----------------------------------------
# Abstract
Add a new method `code_range` as an alternative to `source_location` to Proc and Method
# Background
I'd like to get a body from a Proc in TraceLocation gem
(
https://github.com/yhirano55/trace_location), in order to add what's executed to the
output. There's no way to do that in current Ruby implementation, so as an
alternative, I considered getting source code location of a Proc.
# Proposal
I propose that `Proc#code_range` and `Method#code_range`. Other names can work as well,
for example `Proc#source_region`. It returns an array containing filename as a first
argument and position information as a second array. For example:
`a_proc.position # => [(irb), [1, 5, 3, 25]]`
# Implementation
I've implemented a simpler version of this, see gist for more details.
https://gist.github.com/okuramasafumi/ac90bbf04a1c13b7d67954c9c5e62553
Notice I use `code_location` from iseq struct.
# Discussion
One might say that we can simply add columns and end position to Proc#source_location.
However, this can easily brake existing apps such as Pry.
It's also possible that we add additional keyword argument to `Proc#source_location`,
for instance:
`a_proc.source_location(including_range: true)`
This change can also break existing apps since in old Rubies this keyword argument cannot
be accepted.
Therefore, adding a new method is better in terms of backward compatibility. It might be
better at readability as well.
# Summary
I propose an API to get code position of Proc and Method so that we can get body of them
(especially of a Proc).
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/