|Re: Q: Definition of a scripting lang. firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-03-27)|
|Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) email@example.com (1995-05-15)|
|Editing/storing syntax trees firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-05-28)|
|Re: Editing/storing syntax trees email@example.com (Stefan Monnier) (1995-06-05)|
|Re: Editing/storing syntax trees firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-06-23)|
|Re: Editing/storing syntax trees email@example.com (1995-06-23)|
|Re: Editing/storing syntax trees firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-06-23)|
|Re: Editing/storing syntax trees email@example.com (Frode Odegard) (1995-06-24)|
|Re: Editing/storing syntax trees firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-06-24)|
|[5 later articles]|
|From:||email@example.com (Preston Briggs)|
|Organization:||Tera Computer Company, Seattle, WA|
|Date:||Sun, 28 May 1995 22:50:54 GMT|
> ... Wouldn't it be so much easier to store your source as a syntax-tree ?
>In theory I agree, ...
I disagree. ASCII source is actually a fine representation, small and
convenient. Syntax trees, on disk, are bulky and inconvenient.
Separate your concerns. Use a single, good editor for all your
programming languages, and individual compilers for each language.
Otherwise, you get stuck using/writing a new editor for each new
language. You might be able to make them all feel the same, but it's
still a major multiplication of your programming effort.
If you want general access to a syntax tree, say for use by several
different tools, write a single scanner-parser combination that builds
a tree form from the source form; but please don't multiply your editors.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.