|Re: Q: Definition of a scripting lang. email@example.com (1995-03-27)|
|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)|
|Re: Editing/storing syntax trees email@example.com (1995-06-24)|
|Re: Editing/storing syntax trees firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-06-27)|
|[3 later articles]|
|From:||email@example.com (Henry Baker)|
|Date:||Fri, 23 Jun 1995 03:42:18 GMT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Preston Briggs) wrote:
> > ... 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.
ASCII is a terrible representation, because it has to be reparsed on
The 'bulk' problem has now been solved with new compress/decompress-on-the-fly
disk drivers, which are highly optimized for compression, and the newer
HW will have specialized high performance chips for doing this that
I expect will significantly outperform any parsing routines.
> 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.
Yes, this is usually called 'Lisp'. :-)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.