|Abstract Syntax Trees - binary tree or other, which is best? email@example.com (Ed Davis) (2000-10-01)|
|Re: Abstract Syntax Trees - binary tree or other, which is best? Joachim.Pimiskern@de.bosch.com (Joachim Pimiskern) (2000-10-08)|
|Re: Abstract Syntax Trees - binary tree or other, which is best? firstname.lastname@example.org (Tom Payne) (2000-10-08)|
|From:||Ed Davis <email@example.com>|
|Date:||1 Oct 2000 00:24:05 -0400|
|Organization:||Deja.com - Before you buy.|
I have read a couple of texts where the author recommends using a
binary tree for the abstract syntax tree. In many other texts, non-
binary trees are used, with the tree being tailored to what is being
stored at the time.
Are there major advantages to using a binary tree? The second
approach seems easier to me (as in Terry, Louden, and Watt), but I'm a
neophyte in this area, so what do I know.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.