Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics.

Srinu <sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com>
Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:01:04 -0700 (PDT)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com (Srinu) (2009-09-13)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. quinn_jackson2004@yahoo.ca (Quinn Tyler Jackson) (2009-09-18)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. news@cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker) (2009-09-18)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2009-09-18)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. news@cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker) (2009-09-19)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2009-09-21)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. torbenm@pc-003.diku.dk (2009-09-23)
[3 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Srinu <sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: Compilers Central
Keywords: theory, parse
Posted-Date: 18 Sep 2009 11:46:31 EDT

Dear All,


Can we have a language/grammar, which doesn't need any semantics
checking for it to be able to correctly interpreted by its compiler? I
mean, if some statement of this language/grammar satisfies the syntax
of the grammar, then it is a perfect statement and a compiler can
perform right things according to what the statement specifies.
Compiler shall not need semantics checking. Idea is to remove
semantics checking phase from a compiler.


Can this be possible?


If not, where can we face problem?


Thanks and regards,
Srinivas.
[I've never seen a grammar that could handle in a reasonable checks
that variables are declared before use, and that types of subexpressions
match. -John]


Post a followup to this message

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