exactly; the AST can be acquired without knowing anything about types.
-
-
ARGH! Not if your definition of AST has any meaning, though?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
according to wikipedia, an abstract syntax tree is not necessarily context-sensitive
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AMadan4 @cmuratori and
"Once built, additional information is added to the AST by means of subsequent processing..."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
BUT YOU'RE NOT ADDING INFORMATION, YOU'RE REORGANIZING THE TREE.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @AMadan4 and
It's not a question of annotating the tree, _it's the wrong tree_.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @AMadan4 and
So you _didn't_ parse the input into the correct AST tree, you produced a temp tree.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @AMadan4 and
Now a _second_ parser has to come along and parse _that_ tree into the _real_ tree.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @AMadan4 and
This is not the same thing as just marking up the right tree with more information!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @AMadan4 and
And in an extreme case, you might imaging trees that look nothing alike!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This is what I mean by "kick the can". You just moved the real parser somewhere else.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @AMadan4 and
That to me is not a solution to the problem, that's just moving the problem somewhere else.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
But ultimately the problem is solved, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.