|
|
|
|
|
by _a_a_a_
1076 days ago
|
|
@pessimizer, @SuperCuber - So educate me. Let's base it on something I've actually done, a code analyser. For this you parse the code into an AST, and to deal with lexical scopes of declarations of procedures/variables etc. you have a stack of symbol tables. So we've got a tree (the AST), we've got a symbol table for the current scope (a hash table of <id, info> pairs), and we have a stack of symbol tables (a stack). A tree, a hash table and a stack. Those are data structures. What more needs to be added to this definition to turn it from "data structures" into a "data model"? Firstly this is a serious question, secondly I have a great deal of experience of defining data structures to solve problems, so I can't see what adding an abstract term is doing. You could say that the extra something is the specification/maintenance of the correct interrelationship between those data structures (and I'd agree), and there's a word for that: it's called 'code'. I genuinely don't understand what you're getting at and I'd genuinely like to know. |
|