|Formally Defining a Programming Language email@example.com (Seima Rao) (2011-11-19)|
|Re: Formally Defining a Programming Language firstname.lastname@example.org (Kaz Kylheku) (2011-11-21)|
|Re: Formally Defining a Programming Language email@example.com (Christophe de Dinechin) (2011-11-22)|
|Re: Formally Defining a Programming Language firstname.lastname@example.org (email@example.com) (2011-11-27)|
|Re: Formally Defining a Programming Language firstname.lastname@example.org (2012-02-29)|
|Re: Formally Defining a Programming Language email@example.com (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-03-02)|
|Date:||Sun, 27 Nov 2011 20:58:37 -0800 (PST)|
|Posted-Date:||28 Nov 2011 00:12:40 EST|
> > ii) How did the designers come up with
> > something called a "specifier"?
It is a practical need. With a language in one hand and the need to
implement it in the other hand.
Take the identifier 'a'. Does it represent a variable, a function, or
what? The language syntax should help indicate which. Let's say the
syntax indicates it is a variable. Now comes the implementation and
use of it as a variable. This forces consideration of the underlying
hardware which may very well handle variables of 'float' differently
than those of 'int', and that 'sign' maybe an issue in
implementation. So to pass along more information about 'a', a meta-
term is given called "specifier". And a need to inform the translator
about such attributes of 'a' gives rise to another meta-term
Section 4. What's in a name?
C bases the interpretation of an identifier upon two attributes of the
identifier: its _storage class_ and its _type_. ...
> ROFL! The word "specifier" is just something that popped into
> someone's head, that's all.
> You're not going to achieve formality just by mimicing some jargon
> from C and C++.
> To define a language formally, you have to say exactly what is the
> structure and behavior of each construct.
Doesn't LISP fit this though?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.