in reply to
Re: Trees and Language::AttributeGrammar
in thread Trees and Language::AttributeGrammar
Thanks for the nice response. Let's say I understand it...:-)
Something however tells me that both of your solutions take away something very important from the elegance of the code: in my opinion the efficiency lies in that we let the Cons stuff just emerge and go away on the fly.
My qustion is: do you have any better idea to represent trees and attribute grammars to manipulate them than mine? Once I adopted this "functional" approach I really do not want to go back to the "imperative" world...