Re: [Opencxx-users] test build failure: Ubuntu Dapper Amd64/libtool

[<se...@in...>]

On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 14:53 -0400, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> skaller wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 14:14 -0400, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> >> skaller wrote:
> >
[...]
> > In other words it generates an actual parse tree, rather than
> > an abstract syntax tree?

the "rather" may mislead, the parse tree is an augmented AST.

And further more, for C++, abstract syntax tree(AST) is kind of wrong.
That is, as pointed out by stefan below, that the resulting AST received
from a particular translation unit, can not be is representation without
semantic analysis.  Abstract semantic tree anyone.

Let say also, that grammar for openc++ need a major refresh.  I means,
it is not the same as the one given in appendix A of the ISO standard.
So it cost you more for changing or applying desired behaviors.

> Exactly. OpenC++ generates a parse tree, and does everything else in a secondary
> pass. However, it doesn't preserve alternatives resulting from ambiguous syntax,
> but rather uses some heuristics to 'guess' the right interpretation of the syntax...
> which may fail.
> 
> Synopsis on the other hand does construct a symbol table during parsing, and thus
> can disambiguate on-the-fly (much like g++ actually).
> The result is still a parse tree (using a cleaned up and enhanced version of OpenC++'s
> own PTree design), and all higher level representations (such as AST) are then built
> by traversing the parse tree, symbol table, and type repository (once completed).
> 
> Regards,
> 		Stefan
>