View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
August 22, 2010
safeD formal semantics
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><
August 22, 2010
Re: safeD formal semantics
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.
August 23, 2010
Re: safeD formal semantics
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
August 24, 2010
Re: safeD formal semantics
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
August 24, 2010
Re: safeD formal semantics
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><
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home