Re: RM and abstract syntax trees

On Oct 31, 11:55 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 5:31 am, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >>I could formalise "the equivalent of pointers" by defining an
> >>isomorphism between a C based pointer implementation of an AST, and an
> >>RM representation using arbitrary meaningless node identifiers, and
> >>where pointer dereferences in the C implementation map to
> >>corresponding joins in the RM representation.
>
> > I am skeptical that such an isomorphism exists.
>
> I am not skeptical. Check out the weasel words "arbitrary meaningless
> node identifier". If we say that arbitrary meaningless node identifiers
> point at nodes, then we have the isomorphism.

> The real question to ask is: Why the hell would we need arbitrary
> meaningless node identifiers in the first place?

The answer is we don't, because we shouldn't use RM to represent an AST. Received on Thu Nov 01 2007 - 02:35:36 CET