|Ganapathi's code generation compilers@ima.UUCP (1986-01-07)|
|Re: Ganapathi's code generation compilers@ima.UUCP (1986-01-08)|
|Relay-Version:||version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site mit-hermes.ARPA|
|Posting-Version:||Notesfiles $Revision: 188.8.131.52 $; site ima.UUCP|
|Date:||8 Jan 86 16:32:00 GMT|
|Posted:||Wed Jan 8 11:32:00 1986|
|Date-Received:||10 Jan 86 11:22:16 GMT|
|Nf-From:||ima!compilers Jan 8 11:32:00 1986|
Organization: Univ of Utah CS Dept
Denotational semantics is easy and natural for Lisp hackers, since it's
all objects and functions. A corollary is that it gets hairy for Lisp
when one starts doing destructive ops and nonlocal jumps, so formal
definitions of Common Lisp are hard to find... Stoy's book is a good
one, although some dislike it because it's not sufficiently precise...
Can anyone refute my gut feeling that attribute grammars are a kludge?
I've never found a really solid justification for their existence...
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.