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...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Trees and Language::AttributeGrammar
by nothingmuch (Priest) on Mar 06, 2006 at 22:02 UTC

    Seriously though, post a bug on - luqui should know about this and fix it somehow...

    luqui also said he will add support for attributes over aggregate types (e.g. @<children>.foo) eventually, if he can find a nice way.

    zz zZ Z Z #!perl
      The bug has finally been fixed in version 0.08. There is also syntax for aggregate types, though it is awkward: my @child_foos = `@<children>`.foo; Luke
        Thaks a lot! I have the Haskell solution almost ready, but, as this bug is now resolved, I can return to Perl, which I prefer from obvious reasons...