- From: Stan Devitt <stan.devitt@gwi-ag.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 14:06:49 +0200
- To: 'Francois Bry' <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
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. Basically, it should be there to help define the language and to make it easier to implement and validate any actual realization (the XML linearization, the human readable syntax , and any others). But at least we agree that it should be there. Stan -----Original Message----- From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Francois Bry Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:25 PM To: public-rif-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: [RIF] Current list of requirements and design principles for RIF Stan Devitt wrote: > Is there any particular reason we are not explicitly mentioning an > abstract syntax as either a requirement or a principle in addition to > a human readable and exchange syntax? I don't quite see it being > implied by the other two, and it usually makes the design and > implementation process a whole lot easier. > > I bel;eive, the following syntaxes are needed: 1. a human readable syntax 2. an XML linearized syntax 3. a syntax for the representation in main memory (for language compilers and interpretaers). Note that, usually in Compilers and computert Science, the last syntax is called "abstract", while the first is called "concrete". Francois
Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 12:07:05 UTC