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
in thread Trees and Language::AttributeGrammar
by rg0now
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |