www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - safeD formal semantics

reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
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><
Aug 22 2010
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
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.
Aug 22 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
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
Aug 22 2010
prev sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
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
Aug 23 2010
parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello bearophile,

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

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><
Aug 23 2010