[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [Dltk-dev] AST Discussion
|
Is the intent to generalize the AST structure enough to handle a
'language' such as Antlr?
Formally, an Antlr module is composed of a grammar statement, globally
scoped attributes, rules, and rule scoped attributes. While not
exact, in general an attribute can be treated as an _expression_ and a rule
as a statement. The requirements for rewriting (refactoring?) and
formatting will be different from classical expressions and statements,
but hopefully within the scope of the new DLTK abstractions.
Happy to help flush out the requirements.
Best,
Gerald
At 04:10 PM 4/22/2008, Mark Howe wrote:
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_6355D410F100AC49AF5FB137855762B03636E307cgmb01codegearn_"
Andrey, Andrei and I have had some discussion about the need
for a rewriter for DLTK. The time frame is probably after the release of
1.0 this summer. However, prior to 1.0 and starting the rewriter we
should discuss
changes we may want to
make the AST.
My reasons for suggesting changes to the AST are:
We should avoid having to work in multiple AST's on DLTK.
With a careful design we should be able to the use the generic AST for
the rewriter and formatting. This is important to avoid duplication of
work among different languages. That won't preclude languages from using
a dedicated AST.
I have some suggestions to kick start the discussion.
Generalize the ASTNode hierachy
Generalize the ASTNode hierarchy so it better fits all
dynamic languages. Various languages have different notions of what an
'_expression_' and a 'statement' are. I suggest removing _expression_ and
Statement from the ASTNode hierarchy (i.e. flattening the hierchy).
Instead have a property on ASTNode which returns whether it is a
statement or an _expression_. For instance a field declaration is an
_expression_ in Ruby (in fact a method declaration is an _expression_,
although it returns a null) but is currently a Statement ->
Declaration -> FieldDeclaration.
Modify the ASTVisitor to support the flattened hierarchy,
currently it has
visit(_expression_ ..) visit(Statement..)
visit(MethodDeclaration... visit(ModuleDeclaration and
visit(TypeDeclaration...
change to something like
visitExpression(ASTNode.. visitStatement(ASTNode etc
and each node would have to call the appropriate visit
method. AST's would probably have to be created from factories so they
can be configured for each language (ie whether an type of node is a
statement or _expression_).
Comments, other
suggestions?
Mark
_______________________________________________
dltk-dev mailing list
dltk-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dltk-dev