Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:53:21 -0700, Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com>
wrote:


>On 6/30/2014 6:09 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:49:00 -0700, Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> BTW, I'm talking about the VWG in the *Revised* Report, which different
>>> somewhat from that in the original report before the Great Schism.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> What was this, please?


          Thank you.


>These events, known as the Great Schism, occurred slightly before I
>arrived. I attended a few meetings of both WG2.1 and WG2.3 and found
>the character of the two groups very different: WG2.1 had a youthful
>enthusiastic, and creative feel to it, while WG2.3 seemed to be
>sourpuss, political, and puffed-up: an air of offense that someone
>should enter the rarefied academe without proper obeisance. That was


          Interesting. I always got a similar feeling about Wirth's
languages.


          Context is everything folks. Just try searching for the Great
Schism when you do not know what it is. There has been more than one.


[snip]


Sincerely,


Gene Wirchekno

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