|Formatting of Language LRMs firstname.lastname@example.org (Seima Rao) (2014-06-17)|
|Re: Formatting of Language LRMs email@example.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-06-20)|
|Re: Formatting of Language LRMs Pidgeot18@verizon.net.invalid (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zaHVhIENyYW5tZXIg8J+Qpw==?=) (2014-06-22)|
|RE: Formatting of Language LRMs firstname.lastname@example.org (Costello, Roger L.) (2014-07-03)|
|Re: Formatting of Language LRMs email@example.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-07-03)|
|Re: syntax checkers, was Formatting of Language LRMs firstname.lastname@example.org (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-07-04)|
|Re: executable semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs email@example.com (2014-07-04)|
|From:||"Costello, Roger L." <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:06:23 +0000|
|References:||14-06-010 14-06-016 14-06-021|
|Posted-Date:||04 Jul 2014 00:55:47 EDT|
> getting the feeling that the start of the art
> in executable semantics is such that we
> could start seeing languages written as
> executable semantics in maybe 10-20 years
> or so.
What are "executable semantics"?
If I were to create a document containing executable semantics, what would I do with it? How would it differ from a document containing, say, Java?
Fascinating discussion - thanks!
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.