Re: RM and abstract syntax trees

From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:56:46 -0000
Message-ID: <1194368206.411251.230140@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>

On Nov 5, 1:06 pm, Tegiri Nenashi <TegiriNena..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 9:06 am, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How do you define "semantic view"? IMO the only significant relation
> encoded in the tree structure is the parent-child, but in order to
> work comfortably with this you have to transitively close it to obtain
> "ancestor of" partial order relation. Both AST and parse tree have the
> same partial order, and AST simply has less number of elements.

I wrote a medium-sized reply basically conceding the point, but it was eaten by Google groups. :-(

Marshall Received on Tue Nov 06 2007 - 10:56:46 CST