Re: Formal semantics of language semantics

"Mark" <whopkins@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu>
25 Oct 2002 00:13:23 -0400

          From comp.compilers

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)
| List of all articles for this month |

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.