John Wilson wrote: > I wonder how feasible it would be to define a standard AST as well? > I'm thinking in terms of a set of interfaces/abstract classes which > represent a class. Each language implementation would > implement/subclass these to produce a concrete AST (a rather confusing > term I'm afraid).
Unfortunately, this ignores one key point: my Ruby-compiled code, for example, would never be representable in anything resembling a Java AST. In fact, it's practically impossible to decompile it even now, and I suspect we're going to see that's the case in many other compiled non-Java languages on the JVM. Microsoft's DLR has made attempts to have a common AST structure (or as they call it, an abstract semantic tree), but from what I understand only IronPython is using it, with IronRuby forced to use the AST coming out of a YACC/Bison-based parser. A common AST would be impressive, but I think it's probably almost impossible to find something we call can use to represent our languages. Of course I'm also a little biased at this point; I've sadly gotten to the point where I can emit sequences of 25-50 raw bytecodes and have them work the first time, so I'm starting to lose touch with a non-bytecode way of life :) - Charlie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
