|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:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Nick Maclaren)|
|Date:||21 Jun 2004 23:39:16 -0400|
|Organization:||University of Cambridge, England|
|References:||04-06-029 04-06-037 04-06-061|
|Posted-Date:||21 Jun 2004 23:39:16 EDT|
Daniel Yokomiso <email@example.com> wrote:
>"Nick Maclaren" <firstname.lastname@example.org> escreveu na mensagem
>> email@example.com (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.
Yes. I don't know of any 'real' software project that it was used for,
but that might say more about my ignorance than anything else.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.