Re: Formal semantics of language semantics

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>Now, in the case where this is provably safe, it is quite possible
>that the proof involves some quite high-level mathematics. E.g.
>the path switches might involve two properties that are related
>only through the Extended Riemann Hypothesis.
>
>Can you handle that semantic constraint?


Merely asking this question, itself, provides a perfect illustration
of the problem I was referring to. What you're asking for to be done,
which is exactly what a semantics traditionally tries to do, is indeed
the very mistake I'm referring to -- (re)quoted for emphasis below:


Mark <whopkins@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>[...] a somewhat illucid attempt to try and cram things that don't
>belong together into a single monolithic formalism, without further
>factoring out
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^


The question of the semantic constraint you brought up and the question of
control flow semantics don't belong together. The latter is factored out
at the syntatic level -- as shown in both that article and illustrated
in the case of several semantic formalisms.

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