Re: language independent grammar trees?

"Axel Kittenberger" <>
18 Oct 2002 23:43:57 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
language independent grammar trees? (Kajal Jain) (2002-09-19)
Re: language independent grammar trees? (Alex Colvin) (2002-09-20)
Re: language independent grammar trees? (Axel Kittenberger) (2002-10-18)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Axel Kittenberger" <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 18 Oct 2002 23:43:57 -0400
Organization: Customer of Kabelsignal AG
References: 02-09-115 02-09-123
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 18 Oct 2002 23:43:56 EDT

> XML sort of fills this bill - it directly describes a tree.
> It's pretty unreadable by humans.

Not really true, XML is very well readable by humans, and in exammple
XML can be used for configuration files where they are hand
written. Or take docbook as example, well it's not XML but SGML but
for the concerns here it does not matter, the SGML files are is
intended to be written by hand.

I agree with you that some auto-generated xml files are not readable,
because they follow notintend. Though proper written xml files can
even be very clear to read.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.