good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW |
|
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
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... In reply to Re^2: Trees and Language::AttributeGrammar
by rg0now
|
|