Re: Editing/storing syntax trees

preston@tera.com (Preston Briggs) writes:
      > ... 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. ...


Doesn't this depend on the language and the storage layout? For
example, the syntax trees I generate for EDIF are roughtly the same
size (within a few K for Mb size files) as the ASCII from which they
are derived, whereas ones I produce for Oberon-2 are considerably
larger than the ASCII.




      ... 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. ...


As I understood it the suggestion was to store the program as a syntax
tree. IMHO whether you edit it with a special editor or use
parsers/unparsers to convert between ASCII<->syntax-tree to allow you
to use an ASCII editor is a separate issue. Personally I've tended to
go with the parser/unparser approach.
--

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