25 Oct 2002 00:13:23 -0400

Related articles |
---|

[12 earlier articles] |

Re: Formal semantics of language semantics anw@merlot.uucp (Dr A. N. Walker) (2002-10-18) |

Re: Formal semantics of language semantics whopkins@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) (2002-10-18) |

Re: Formal semantics of language semantics whopkins@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) (2002-10-18) |

Re: Formal semantics of language semantics nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) (2002-10-20) |

Re: Formal semantics of language semantics nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) (2002-10-20) |

Re: Formal semantics of language semantics merlot!anw@mailbox1.ucsd.edu (Dr A. N. Walker) (2002-10-25) |

Re: Formal semantics of language semantics whopkins@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) (2002-10-25) |

Re: Formal semantics of language semantics whopkins@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) (2002-10-25) |

Re: Formal semantics of language semantics nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) (2002-11-06) |

Re: Formal semantics of language semantics nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) (2002-11-06) |

Re: Formal semantics of language semantics jasperk64@yahoo.com (Jasper Kamperman) (2002-11-07) |

From: | "Mark" <whopkins@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu> |

Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |

Date: | 25 Oct 2002 00:13:23 -0400 |

Organization: | University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, Computing Services Division |

References: | 02-10-012 02-10-074 02-10-080 |

Keywords: | semantics |

Posted-Date: | 25 Oct 2002 00:13:22 EDT |

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes:

*>>In particular, as related in the last article: control flow is a*

*>>purely syntatic phenomenon that should be factored out at the syntatic*

*>>level before you get to the semantics. A semantics should see nothing*

*>>but pure expressions.*

*>*

*>Hmm. "Purely" syntactic? "Nothing but PURE expressions"?*

Which was in direct reference to what followed. You're jumping the

gun.

*>Routine X has two arguments A and B and the semantic constraint*

*>that they may not be the same.*

*>*

*>Routine Y has three arguments P, Q and R, and calls X(P,Q) in one*

*>path and X(Q,R) in another.*

*>*

*>Routine Z calls Y(M,N,N) in one place and Y(M,M,N) in another.*

The previous article before the one you quoted already showed how the

concept of subroutines emerged quite naturally from the 2nd larger

class of infinitary expressions discussed there; as nothing more than

a notation in the concrete syntax for these types of infinite

expressions in the abstract syntax -- the context-free infinite

expressions.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the
comp.compilers page.

Search the
comp.compilers archives again.