AST in JSON format

Brendan Eich brendan at
Mon Dec 7 18:34:13 PST 2009

On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:07 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:

> <snip>
>> OTOH, if we standardize an AST format, then presumably we'll be  
>> adding
>> a source->AST API function that uses the implementation's existing  
>> parser.
> I'd be worried about assuming that this is an obvious/trivial thing  
> for implementations to do, you're effectively requiring that the  
> internal AST representation of an implementation be entirely  
> standardised.  For example it is not possible for JSC's parser to  
> produce an AST that exactly matches the input code -- I would expect  
> similar problems with other implementations.

This is a good point, we've talked here before about bottom-up vs. top- 
down parser trade-offs, left- vs. right-associativity for && and ||,  

Also, some (at least Waldemar, IIRC) on TC39 have objected to  
intermediating concrete syntax to semantics via an AST, since it  
increases the size and complexity of the standard.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list