3 ms·

def f = x = readline; g x def g x = print x; f

• jcao219 10y ago
  The AST of that would still be a tree. AST does not concern itself with the semantics of the language, only its syntax.
• TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Not 100% sure how to interpret this piece of code, but my naive interpretation gives this AST: (def f () (let ((x (readline))) (g x))) (def g (x) (print x) (f)) Writing in Lisp can open one's eyes about the underlying structure of the code.
  • unhammer 10y ago
    My point was that "Code editing is tree editing" sounds a bit like if you can understand the syntax tree, you understand what the code does – which isn't true here. Trees don't show the recursion[1], and a tree-view of code (with e.g. folding) might even give a false impression that what's inside one branch is somehow self-contained. Ie. Turing Machines are more expressive than CFG's :-) Not that tree-view's aren't helpful (indentation is important, and editing Lisp with paredit is a real joy), but there's much more to code-editing than tree-manipulation. [1] Unless your "tree"-view is actually a lazy call-graph …