RE: Formatting of Language LRMs

"Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:06:23 +0000

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Formatting of Language LRMs seimarao@gmail.com (Seima Rao) (2014-06-17)
Re: Formatting of Language LRMs ivan@ootbcomp.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 costello@mitre.org (Costello, Roger L.) (2014-07-03)
Re: Formatting of Language LRMs ivan@ootbcomp.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-07-03)
Re: syntax checkers, was Formatting of Language LRMs gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-07-04)
Re: executable semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs wclodius@earthlink.net (2014-07-04)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:06:23 +0000
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 14-06-010 14-06-016 14-06-021
Keywords: semantics, question
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!


/Roger

Post a followup to this message

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