Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C)

jgm@CS.Cornell.EDU (Gregory Morrisett) writes:
> Providing a precise semantics for a language is not just something
> for the "theoriticians" to do -- it really provides the basis for a
> language -- a contract for both the implementors and the users...


Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu> writes:


> Unfortunately, such contracts work much better if they are written
> in a language that the implementors and the users can understand
> without calling in a specialist to interpret for them. This is why
> the ANSI C committee deliberately decided against formal
> specifications. The fact that much of the audience for the contract
> cannot read formal specs is regrettable, but it is a fact and it
> will not change any time soon.


It is also a fact that the same audience is unable to understand the
ANSI C specification, and -- even worse -- without being aware of
that. I venture to say that everybody who can read and FULLY
understand all of the definition of ANSI C will also be able to
understand "The Definition of Standard ML", (perhaps after a short
introduction to the notation used, even though this notation is
explained in the document itself).
--
-Matthias
--

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