Re: Why Can't We Build a C Compiler?

jbs@fenchurch.mit.edu (Jeff Siegal)
3 Jan 89 20:24:08 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[5 earlier articles]
Re: Why Can't We Build a C Compiler? seanf@sco.uucp (1988-12-23)
Re: Why Can't We Build a C Compiler? daveb@lethe.uucp (1988-12-26)
Re: Why Can't We Build a C Compiler? olender@rachmaninov.CS.ColoState.EDU (1988-12-28)
Re: Why Can't We Build a C Compiler? frode@m2cs.naggum.se (Frode Odegard) (1988-12-29)
Re: Why Can't We Build a C Compiler? unido!gmdzi!jc@uunet.uu.net (1989-01-05)
Why can't we build a C compiler? think!compass!worley@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (1988-12-19)
Re: Why Can't We Build a C Compiler? jbs@fenchurch.mit.edu (1989-01-03)
Re: Why can't we build a C compiler? uokmax!glcowin@Central.Sun.COM (1989-01-18)
Re: Why can't we build a C compiler? limonce@pilot.njin.net (1989-01-24)
Re: Why can't we build a C compiler? waterloo.edu!cognos!rayt@RELAY.CS.NET (R.) (1989-01-25)
Re: Why can't we build a C compiler? kurt@tc.fluke.com (1989-01-25)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: jbs@fenchurch.mit.edu (Jeff Siegal)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 3 Jan 89 20:24:08 GMT
References: <3099@ima.ima.isc.com>
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA

In article <3099@ima.ima.isc.com> Nick Rothwell <nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>Standard ML is,
>to my knowledge, the only language to have a complete formal semantics
>(which is *not* huge - 97 pages). Does Ada have one? How big is it?


Scheme has a formal semantics which is about 3 or 4 pages long.


It probably doesn't serve much purpose to list other languages which
are formally defined (I'm sure there are some), but I did want to
point that they exist.


Jeff Siegal
--

Post a followup to this message

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