|language for (abstract) semantic specification firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-06-09)|
|Re: language for (abstract) semantic specification email@example.com (2004-06-11)|
|Re: language for (abstract) semantic specification firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-06-12)|
|Re: language for (abstract) semantic specification email@example.com (Daniel Yokomiso) (2004-06-14)|
|Re: language for (abstract) semantic specification firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-06-21)|
|Re: language for (abstract) semantic specification email@example.com (2004-06-26)|
|Re: language for (abstract) semantic specification Andreas.Prinz@hia.no (Andreas Prinz) (2004-06-30)|
|From:||"Daniel Yokomiso" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||14 Jun 2004 17:45:45 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||14 Jun 2004 17:45:45 EDT|
"Nick Maclaren" <email@example.com> escreveu na mensagem
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Vali) writes:
> |> I've been searching the web for a kind of semantic specification
> |> language (for C code) that is really used in practice somewhere. I've
> |> found that PC-Lint has something for function semantics (-sem option)
> |> but I'm looking for something more complex/flexible and maybe already
> |> in use in some real applications.
> I have looked at this a few times, and the situation is dire.
Wasn't VDM-SL designed for "real use"? It's been a while since I studied it
but IIRC it's quite capable.
There was a excellent tutorial book from Waikato available online but it
seems to have disappeared. Fortunately archive.org has a copy of it.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.