Re: about syntax trees

leppoc@gmail.com wrote:


> A good idea is to use AST (Abstract Syntax Tree). To do so, make for
> each type of Tree, a struct, or object.


And don't forget to add an node type to the basic node structure, so
that a visitor can know who is who. An extended "operator" enum,
covering all node types, will be helpful.


> e.g. in pseudo-code:
>
> BinOp extends Tree {
> Tree leftOperand
> Tree rightOperand
> Operator operator //+, -, *, /, % ....
> }
>
> IfThenElse extends Tree {
> Tree condition
> Tree thenPart
> Tree elsePart
> }
>
> When you parse it with your recursive descent, you can almost directly
> fill those trees.


Trees should not be write-only. There exists no absolutely best
implementation for trees, but the list oriented approach (LISP...) IMO
is the most flexible one, with regards to postprocessing of trees.


DoDi

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