Vlad Dumitrescu XX (LN/EAB)
Fri Dec 30 12:08:47 CET 2005
> Try erl_syntax:abstract/1 instead - I think it tries to avoid
> creating "mixed" representations. You may have to use
> erl_syntax:revert/1 on the result if you want the
> representation to be erl_parse-compatible.
Thanks for the answer. Right now I am happy with using erl_parse in the
prototype. I was just baffled by this inconsistency, as I thought the
result would be the same.
I will probably switch to erl_syntax later. I find that I can't push
myself over the threshold of only using erl_syntax, mostly because with
erlide I send the parse trees to Java and there I have to traverse the
The plan is to move this functionality on the Erlang side, where it
really belongs, and then erl_syntax's API will be perfect.
More information about the erlang-questions