Le 04/05/2018 à 21:13, Denis Kudriashov a écrit :

2018-05-04 21:10 GMT+03:00 Richard Sargent <richard.sarg...@gemtalksystems.com <mailto:richard.sarg...@gemtalksystems.com>>:

    On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Denis Kudriashov
    <dionisi...@gmail.com <mailto:dionisi...@gmail.com>> wrote:


        2018-05-04 19:45 GMT+03:00 Sean P. DeNigris
        <s...@clipperadams.com <mailto: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?

This is to make the difference between the parse tree (or concrete syntax tree) and the transformation of that parse tree into an abstract syntax tree (where a bunch of syntax tree nodes created by the parsing are removed or made absent... they are not needed to represent the code structure). Hence the abstract: the abstract syntax tree is an abstraction of the parse tree, even if it represent an exhaustive view of a concrete piece of code.

https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs143/cs143.1128/lectures/02/Slides02.pdf, slide 159 onward.

            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
            <http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html>






Reply via email to