syntax_tools:epp_dodger

Vlad Dumitrescu <>
Fri Jun 2 14:53:09 CEST 2006


On 6/2/06, Richard Carlsson <> wrote:
> I suggest that you use the functions
> that I mentioned to map a tree to a simple Canonical Form:
> something like {NodeType, [Attributes], [SubTrees]}. This
> translation would make your problems with handling the old
> erl_parse representation simply go away, and you are still
> free to add your annotations etc. Then send this canonical
> form as a term to the Java side.

I thought the tree node representation was {tree, NodeType,
[Attributes], [SubTrees]} and thus didn't understand your
suggestion... but after checking again, I suppose I forgot everything
about the current hairy representation [*] right after implementing it
:-)

[*] the representation being {tree, #attributes,
#erl_parse_tree_with_erlsyntaxified_subnodes}

Or since we already have to hack the parser (in order to gather the
required annotation information), we can build this simplified
representation directly...

Thanks again!
regards,
Vlad



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list