Re: Formal semantics of language semantics

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>>In particular, as related in the last article: control flow is a
>>purely syntatic phenomenon that should be factored out at the syntatic
>>level before you get to the semantics. A semantics should see nothing
>>but pure expressions.
>
>Hmm. "Purely" syntactic? "Nothing but PURE expressions"?


Which was in direct reference to what followed. You're jumping the
gun.


>Routine X has two arguments A and B and the semantic constraint
>that they may not be the same.
>
>Routine Y has three arguments P, Q and R, and calls X(P,Q) in one
>path and X(Q,R) in another.
>
>Routine Z calls Y(M,N,N) in one place and Y(M,M,N) in another.


The previous article before the one you quoted already showed how the
concept of subroutines emerged quite naturally from the 2nd larger
class of infinitary expressions discussed there; as nothing more than
a notation in the concrete syntax for these types of infinite
expressions in the abstract syntax -- the context-free infinite
expressions.

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.