2018-05-04 21:10 GMT+03:00 Richard Sargent < richard.sarg...@gemtalksystems.com>:
> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> 2018-05-04 19:45 GMT+03:00 Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com>: >> >>> Ramon Leon-5 wrote >>> > And my point made; I don't even know what that means. >>> >>> Ha ha, I googled it and even after seeing the definition still didn't >>> understand - we must be getting old ;-) >>> >>> Regarding the use of acronyms - while I agree with you as a general >>> principle, I wonder about this case. Since the argument IIUC is that "a >>> general user won't know the domain well enough to understand the >>> acronym", >>> would they understand "abstractSyntaxTree"?! >> >> >> Now I am wonder: is it really correct to call syntax tree as abstract >> when it is really implemented? >> AST is very known term but now when I read it word by word I have such >> questions :). >> > > In computer science, an *abstract syntax tree* (AST), or just *syntax > tree*, is a *tree* representation of the *abstract syntactic *structure > of source code written in a programming language. > [Wikipedia] > I know it. But my stupid question is why it's still called abstract while it is implemented for concrete language? > > >> >> >>> That, to me, is as opaque as >>> the acronym for one not acquainted with the domain, and may buy us >>> little at >>> the cost of a good amount of extra typing. Maybe keep the acronym and >>> add a >>> good method comment… >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Cheers, >>> Sean >>> -- >>> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >>> >>> >> >
