Hey Gabriel - thanks for chipping in - you've made me realise that its perhaps
easier to give a simpler example (for the multiple replacement)., and while
trying to explain in simpler terms I managed to solve the problem myself - but
it does demonstrate the docs around this need a bit more work as I didn't find
it easy to reason on.
I am still confused what the setting "this rule is for a method" does - so am
keen for someone to shed light.
Anyway for my example it seems that I have to be very specific in how I match
things for example I had to use the search pattern:
taskbarButtonMenu: `arg
| `@temps |
`.@before.
moveSubmenu
addToggle: 'Move right' translated
target: self
selector: #taskbarMoveRight
getStateSelector: nil
enablementSelector: #canBeMovedToRight.
`.@after
And it took me ages to realise that I have to specify the temp vars matching,
and also understand that the @before and @after both needed the "." to
represent lists of expressions both before and after and then the really subtle
"." after @before which I guess prevents greedy matching.
With all of that in place, could then have the write rule add an extra
statement after the moveSubmenu (or as many as I want)
e.g.
taskbarButtonMenu: `arg
| `@temps |
`.@before.
moveSubmenu
addToggle: 'Move right' translated
target: self
selector: #taskbarMoveRight
getStateSelector: nil
enablementSelector: #canBeMovedToRight.
moveSubmenu
addToggle: 'Move to...' translated
target: self
selector: #taskbarMoveTo
getStateSelector: nil.
`.@after
I'm curious now whether there is a more efficient way to do what I have done?
Possibly the {} syntax could help now i've figured out the basic matching.
I really find it easy to confuse that if you don't specify the @temps section
that can leave out a lot of matches (it essentialy means 0 or more temps vs.
leaving it out means no temps at all). This is a trap that the docs should call
out better I think.
Anyway - now I just need to figure out how to do this programatically - and
possibly I can write a few more useful refactorings I've also thought it was
odd that were missing.
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024, at 12:19 PM, Gabriel Cotelli wrote:
> I've used the rewrite tool extensively but never tried to create more than
> one expression from the original one. I think that this probably won't work
> because in your example the code is just statements, but the matching
> expression can be in code like this:
>
> self doSomething: (
> moveSubmenu
> addToggle: 'Move right' translated
> target: self
> selector: #taskbarMoveRight
> getStateSelector: nil
> enablementSelector: #canBeMovedToRight)
>
> and in this case, you cannot replace this with two statements. So I'm tempted
> to say that what you want is not supported.
>
> Regards, Gabriel
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 5:44 AM Tim Mackinnon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> __
>> I've never really learned the rewrite tool but while waiting for changes to
>> propagate through P12, I thought maybe I could use it to safely patch
>> changes until there are official updates (and it was a good chance to get
>> more familiar with it).
>>
>> I thought there was more documentation available for how it works
>> (interested in any old articles - but the online help in P12 is ok -
>> although it doesn't display in markdown - in fact give there is markdown
>> support now - I am a bit confused what should appear more readable these
>> days - and how to fix/contribute changes to help).
>>
>> This aside - I wanted to patch the SystemWindow>>taskbarButtonMenu: (and add
>> my fix to move tabs to any position).
>>
>> I started writing the following search expression - the find the last call
>> to #addToggle:... method call that has a literal referencing
>> #canBeMovedRight - as I want to add my new menu item after it.
>>
>> e.g.
>>
>> moveSubmenu `@addToggle: `{ :node | node isLiteralNode and: [ node value =
>> #canBeMovedToRight] }
>>
>> but I'm not sure my {} filter block is ever called, as the above matches
>> both addToggle:... calls, and not the one I'm after? I don't understand this
>> - any have ideas on the proper syntax for generic matching?
>>
>> Anyway - I decided that in my case there is only one - so I can match it
>> explicitly and so I search on the full call:
>>
>> and I entered this:
>> moveSubmenu
>> addToggle: 'Move right' translated
>> target: self
>> selector: #taskbarMoveRight
>> getStateSelector: nil
>> enablementSelector: #canBeMovedToRight.
>>
>> Which matches exactly - then I want to replace the single statement with 2
>> statements e.g.
>>
>> moveSubmenu
>> addToggle: 'Move right' translated
>> target: self
>> selector: #taskbarMoveRight
>> getStateSelector: nil
>> enablementSelector: #canBeMovedToRight.
>>
>> moveSubmenu
>> addToggle: 'Move to' translated
>> target: self
>> selector: #taskbarMoveTo
>> getStateSelector: nil.
>>
>>
>> However this gives an error in the rewrite tool (actually it results in a
>> zero change, that then gives an error for EpMonitor).
>>
>> But my question is - why can't you rewrite a single statement to multiple
>> ones? I have noticed that in this case I can cascade the message send - and
>> this then rewrites properly - so it looks like it wants to replace a single
>> node with a single node.
>>
>> If I couldn't cascade - It seems I would have to rewrite with something
>> like: [ "put multiple expressions here" ] value.
>>
>> This seems an odd choice - but am I missing something obvious?
>>
>> Do you have to do what I'm proposing in 2 steps - rewrite to a block (or
>> some equivalent) and then a 2nd rewrite to simplify the expression (like a
>> refactor step) - so its more provably correct?
>>
>> I'm just curious on this - as it seemed time to learn this properly?
>>
>> Tim
