Oliver Hunt wrote: > <snip> > >> OTOH, if we standardize an AST format, then presumably we'll be adding >> a source->AST API function that uses the implementation's existing parser. > > I'd be worried about assuming that this is an obvious/trivial thing for > implementations to do, you're effectively requiring that the internal AST > representation of an implementation be entirely standardised.
Not at all. An implementation could, for example, parse to its internal AST format and then convert from that to the standard format (which is a trivial tree walk). This only requires that the internal format not lose information relative to the standard one. If it does currently lose information, then changing it not to is relatively straightforward. In any case, without a source->AST API, what use is a standard AST format? The existance of that API (and the corresponding AST->source pretty-printing API) is the main motivation for standardizing the format, AFAICS. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
