Re: RM and abstract syntax trees
From: Roy Hann <specially_at_processed.almost.meat>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:29:23 -0000
Message-ID: <aa2dnV0VyZodZLvanZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d_at_pipex.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:29:23 -0000
Message-ID: <aa2dnV0VyZodZLvanZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d_at_pipex.net>
"David BL" <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:1193713604.283167.146850_at_e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> In the following I compare different techniques for representing an
> Abstract Syntax Tree (AST), concluding that RM is poorly suited.
[snip]
> I anticipate that this rule of thumb provides a useful insight on that
> rather vague notion of "semi-structured data". ie it explains exactly
> when and why there is data that is not suitable for direct
> representation in RM.
Education triumphs over learning once again.
Roy Received on Tue Oct 30 2007 - 10:29:23 CET