Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| [2 earlier articles] |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs ivan@ootbcomp.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-06-20) |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-06-21) |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2014-06-21) |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs Pidgeot18@verizon.net.invalid (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zaHVhIENyYW5tZXIg8J+Qpw==?=) (2014-06-22) |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs mertesthomas@gmail.com (2014-06-30) |
| 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) |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs federation2005@netzero.com (2014-07-28) |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs federation2005@netzero.com (2014-08-01) |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-08-03) |
| From: | Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:30:12 -0700 |
| Organization: | A noiseless patient Spider |
| References: | 14-06-010 14-06-016 14-06-021 14-07-004 |
| Keywords: | semantics |
| Posted-Date: | 04 Jul 2014 09:53:04 EDT |
On 7/3/2014 2:06 AM, Costello, Roger L. wrote:
> What are "executable semantics"?
>
> If I were to create a document containing executable semantics, what
> would I do with it?
You would apply it to a purported program and "execute" it and see if
you got diagnostics. Am executable spec is in effect the checking part
of a compiler.
How would it differ from a document containing,
> say, Java?
If the document were a compiler written in Java (i.e. a recognizer and
checker) then formally there is no difference. Practically, an immense
difference. VWG is an ASL for specifying languages. All of Algol68 in
VWG was about four pages of appendix; a compiler for Algol68 written in
Java would be much more than that, even after you strip out optimization
and code generation.
Also, the specification in VWG lends itself to use of metatools: make a
change to the grammar and verify that the revision is complete,
consistent and not redundant. Not something easy to do when the language
is expressed by a Java recognizer.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.