Abstract Syntax Trees - binary tree or other, which is best?

Ed Davis <ed_davis@my-deja.com>
1 Oct 2000 00:24:05 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Abstract Syntax Trees - binary tree or other, which is best? ed_davis@my-deja.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? thp@roam-thp2.cs.ucr.edu (Tom Payne) (2000-10-08)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Ed Davis <ed_davis@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 1 Oct 2000 00:24:05 -0400
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Keywords: AST, question

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.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.