Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Semantics, opt in Semantics seimarao@gmail.com (Seima Rao) (2015-01-15) |
| Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics rpw3@rpw3.org (2015-01-16) |
| Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2015-01-16) |
| Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics haberg-news@telia.com (Hans Aberg) (2015-01-16) |
| Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics wclodius@earthlink.net (2015-01-16) |
| Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2015-01-17) |
| Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics monnier@iro.umontreal.ca (Stefan Monnier) (2015-01-18) |
| From: | Hans Aberg <haberg-news@telia.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Fri, 16 Jan 2015 18:20:13 +0100 |
| Organization: | A noiseless patient Spider |
| References: | 15-01-013 |
| Keywords: | semantics |
| Posted-Date: | 17 Jan 2015 02:12:38 EST |
On 2015/01/15 13:12, Seima Rao wrote:
> Is there something similar for semantics i.e. is there something optional
> in semantics.
...
> [Man, there's a can of worms. There's no semantic formalism that matches real
> semantics as well as BNF matches real syntax. -John]
There is denotational semantics, though. Dave Schmidt's 1986 book is now
available for free:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotational_semantics
http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~schmidt/text/densem.html
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.