Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Re: Q: Definition of a scripting lang. lwall@netlabs.com (1995-03-27) |
| Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (1995-05-15) |
| Editing/storing syntax trees preston@tera.com (1995-05-28) |
| Re: Editing/storing syntax trees stefan.monnier@epfl.ch (Stefan Monnier) (1995-06-05) |
| Re: Editing/storing syntax trees hbaker@netcom.com (1995-06-23) |
| Re: Editing/storing syntax trees daniels@cse.ogi.edu (1995-06-23) |
| Re: Editing/storing syntax trees bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (1995-06-23) |
| Re: Editing/storing syntax trees frode@news2.deltanet.com (Frode Odegard) (1995-06-24) |
| Re: Editing/storing syntax trees hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (1995-06-24) |
| [5 later articles] |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| From: | preston@tera.com (Preston Briggs) |
| Keywords: | design, syntax |
| Organization: | Tera Computer Company, Seattle, WA |
| References: | 95-04-013 95-05-104 |
| 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.
Preston Briggs
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.