Re: [RIF] Current list of requirements and design principles for RIF

Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> Stan Devitt wrote:
>>     
>>> Actually, I see the role of the abstract syntax as more conceptual,
>>> identifying the key language structures and their relationship to each
>>> other, rather than just providing an in-memory presentations for compilers.
>>>   
>>>       
>> I have nop objections with specifying a "more conceptual" synatx. But,
>> p[lease, please, do not call it "abstract syntax" because the expression
>> has been in use since decades for something else. (I am aware that in
>> W3C cicle "abstract syntax" is unsed in an non-standard manner.)
>>     
>
> cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_syntax
>
> I would hope the three kinds of syntax you propose would be connected in
> the obvious way, where parsing the human grammar gives you the abstract
> syntax tree which also looks just like the XML tree.  I also expect only
> the XML syntax to be specified as a normative standard; that will be the
> one that passes between computers.
>
>   
+1. This is exactly what I mean.

Francois