[ruby-talk:16401] Re: Symbolic Computation III

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mathieu Bouchard" <[e-mail]>
> To: "ruby-talk ML" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:39 AM
> Subject: [ruby-talk:16400] Symbolic Computation III

> # An AST definition is similar to a grammar, except that:
> # it doesn't care about syntax differences; it does care
> # about its meaning-conveying parts, and their naming.

Very interesting.  I checked out the source you sent, and if I understand
you correctly, these are definitions for concrete AST nodes that would be
generated by a yet to be produced lexer-parser.  How much ruby must be
implemented in another language (eg. C or java) to be able to bootstrap the
(ruby?) parser that will generate the trees?  Is this such a small amount
that the remainder still deserves to be defined in a separate grammar (the
ast definition)?  Is having two mechanisms for parsing not less simple than
having the entire grammar described for the first level parser?

Or is your draft just to describe the concrete nodes that would be
parsed/interpreted by an implementation in a different language, like most
DOM implementations?  If this is the case, I assume the ast definition is
not intended for use by the initial parser/interpreter, and that a separate
set of thorough descriptors would need to be maintained for the
parser/interpreter.  This would mean that the ast definition or schema is
only useful for post parsing utilities or interpreted interpreters and
documentation??

In any case, please discard the stupid questions I am asking and answer the
ones that are not stupid so I can start to visualize this with you then ask
some more stupid questions.

Wayne