I know it. But my stupid question is why it's still called abstract while it is implemented for concrete language?
2018-05-04 21:10 GMT+03:00 Richard Sargent <richard.sargent@gemtalksystems.com >:On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:2018-05-04 19:45 GMT+03:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com>:Ramon Leon-5 wrote
> And my point made; I don't even know what that means.
Ha ha, I googled it and even after seeing the definition still didn't
understand - we must be getting old ;-)
Regarding the use of acronyms - while I agree with you as a general
principle, I wonder about this case. Since the argument IIUC is that "a
general user won't know the domain well enough to understand the acronym",
would they understand "abstractSyntaxTree"?!Now I am wonder: is it really correct to call syntax tree as abstract when it is really implemented?AST is very known term but now when I read it word by word I have such questions :).In computer science, an��abstract syntax tree��(AST), or just��syntax tree, is a��tree��representation of the��abstract syntactic��structure of source code written in a programming language.[Wikipedia]I know it. But my stupid question is why it's still called abstract while it is implemented for concrete language?������That, to me, is as opaque as
the acronym for one not acquainted with the domain, and may buy us little at
the cost of a good amount of extra typing. Maybe keep the acronym and add a
good method comment���