[ANN] Chuck type inferencer

Colin Putney cputney at wiresong.ca
Tue Jun 8 14:12:41 UTC 2004

On Jun 7, 2004, at 4:35 PM, Marcel Weiher wrote:

> However, I think it would be even better if we decoupled the 
> execution-object-tree (whatever you want to call it) from the syntax 
> tree generated by the compiler.   After all, one particular syntax is 
> just another view onto the code (MVC), right? ;-)

Hmm, I'm not sure I buy that. If there's some representation of a 
Smalltalk method that is a more general high-level abstraction than an 
AST, I'd like to know what it is. (Note that I'm talking about an 
abstract, not concrete, syntax tree).

The AST for a Smalltalk method is pretty clean. There isn't a whole lot 
in the syntax that isn't related to the semantics of the method's 
execution. So it wouldn't be difficult to create parsers and pretty 
printers to support alternate syntax. But really, why bother? Does 
anyone actually use the alternate syntax we already have? I am 
interested in alternate views of the code, just not alternate *syntax.*

Also, keeping the AST reasonably equivalent to it's textual 
representation has a lot of advantages - you can write tools like the 
refactoring browser or the debugger that present the code the 
programmer textually, but operate on the AST internally.

> "ExpressionObjects" can be structured CompiledMethods and much, much 
> more...

Like what?


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list