Looking at this: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/249 

> Prediction 4: Formal Semantics Will Be Constructed Earlier

How much of safeD is formalizable? Is there anything in it that is hoplessly impractical to create formal semantics for?

-- 
... <IXOYE><

BCS wrote:
> How much of safeD is formalizable? Is there anything in it that is hoplessly impractical to create formal semantics for?


I don't know, as I don't know how to write 'formal' semantics in english. Some help from someone who does would be appreciated.

On 08/22/2010 09:26 AM, BCS wrote:
> Looking at this: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/249
>> Prediction 4: Formal Semantics Will Be Constructed Earlier
>
> How much of safeD is formalizable? Is there anything in it that is
> hoplessly impractical to create formal semantics for?

I think it should be formalizable. The proofs would be very long for the whole thing, but a representative subset should be fine.

Andrei

BCS:
> How much of safeD is formalizable? Is there anything in it that is hoplessly impractical to create formal semantics for?

And it needs something like this too ^_^ http://pascal-central.com/images/pascalposter.jpg

Bye,
bearophile

Hello bearophile,

> BCS:
> 
>> How much of safeD is formalizable? Is there anything in it that is
>> hoplessly impractical to create formal semantics for?
>> 
> And it needs something like this too ^_^
> http://pascal-central.com/images/pascalposter.jpg

And that's just the grammer. BTW, at one point I posted a reference graph for the D grammer. It was much worse <G>


> Bye,
> bearophile
-- 
... <IXOYE><