Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics

Hans Aberg <haberg-news@telia.com>
Fri, 16 Jan 2015 18:20:13 +0100

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Semantics, opt in Semantics seimarao@gmail.com (Seima Rao) (2015-01-15)
Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics rpw3@rpw3.org (2015-01-16)
Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2015-01-16)
Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics haberg-news@telia.com (Hans Aberg) (2015-01-16)
Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics wclodius@earthlink.net (2015-01-16)
Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2015-01-17)
Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics monnier@iro.umontreal.ca (Stefan Monnier) (2015-01-18)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Hans Aberg <haberg-news@telia.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 18:20:13 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: 15-01-013
Keywords: semantics
Posted-Date: 17 Jan 2015 02:12:38 EST

On 2015/01/15 13:12, Seima Rao wrote:
> Is there something similar for semantics i.e. is there something optional
> in semantics.
...
> [Man, there's a can of worms. There's no semantic formalism that matches real
> semantics as well as BNF matches real syntax. -John]


There is denotational semantics, though. Dave Schmidt's 1986 book is now
available for free:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotational_semantics
http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~schmidt/text/densem.html


Post a followup to this message

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