Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.compilers > #1280

Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs

From George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net>
Newsgroups comp.compilers
Subject Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs
Date 2014-06-26 00:54 -0400
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <14-06-025@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References <14-06-010@comp.compilers> <14-06-023@comp.compilers>

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 02:19:05 -0700 (PDT), seimarao@gmail.com wrote:

>Is there something for semantics as BNF is for grammars ?

First, there is no canon BNF.  What we refer to as "Backus-Naur Form"
today is not the original used for Algol-58, but is BNF plus a handful
of widely accepted practical extensions - alternation set notation,
closure notation, etc. - which together is known as EBNF ('E' for
"extended") or sometimes "core" EBNF.

Core EBNF is easily (but not trivially) portable: every popular
grammar tool understands it in concept, but not every tool uses
exactly the same rule syntax.

In addition, nearly every tool extends core EBNF to enable its own
unique features.  Grammars taking advantage of any feature not in core
EBNF generally will not be portable (not trivially and possibly not
even easily) to a different tool.


To answer your question: No ... there really is nothing for semantics
that approaches the ubiquity of EBNF for grammars.  The closest thing
in practice is the lambda calculus, but there are multiple forms of
the calculus and you'll find that every author extends their chosen
form in some slightly different way.


Moreover, there are 3 broad categories of semantic description:
operational, denotational and axiomatic.  Lambda calculus really is
suitable only for expressing operational and/or denotational forms.
Axiomatic descriptions generally take the form of a propositional
algebra.

Historically, *most* languages have been described by operational
semantics alone, and the majority did not use any formal calculus to
do so.  The most common form of description is, in fact, text - in
conjunction with a "reference" implementation: a compiler or
interpreter against which new implementations can be compared.

Scheme, ML and Haskell are described by denotational semantics.  There
undoubtedly have been others but these are the ones I know offhand.

I'm not aware any languages that are described solely by axiomatic
semantics [possibly some of the declarative logic or theorem prover
languages, but I'm not very familiar with any of these].  AFAIHS,
axiomatic descriptions tend to be more for the developer of a compiler
than for the user of it.  When the language gets documented, it tends
to be using an operational or denotational description.


>What do the books on type systems, lambda calculus, etc, teach and
>where are their topics applied ?

Read some and find out.

George

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Formatting of Language LRMs Seima Rao <seimarao@gmail.com> - 2014-06-17 16:54 +0530
  Re: Formatting of Language LRMs "lpsantil@gmail.com" <lpsantil@gmail.com> - 2014-06-20 10:10 -0700
    Re: Formatting of Language LRMs glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-08-03 04:37 +0000
  Re: Formatting of Language LRMs Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-06-20 12:09 -0700
    Re: Formatting of Language LRMs glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-21 02:27 +0000
    Re: Formatting of Language LRMs Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-06-21 03:09 +0000
    Re: Formatting of Language LRMs Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.net.invalid> - 2014-06-22 21:12 -0500
      Re: VWG and K, was Formatting of Language LRMs Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-06-22 21:47 -0700
      RE: Formatting of Language LRMs "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> - 2014-07-03 09:06 +0000
        Re: Formatting of Language LRMs Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-07-03 22:30 -0700
          Re: syntax checkers, was Formatting of Language LRMs glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-07-04 17:35 +0000
          Re: executable semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs wclodius@earthlink.net (William Clodius) - 2014-07-04 15:53 -0600
  Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs seimarao@gmail.com - 2014-06-24 02:19 -0700
    Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs "lpsantil@gmail.com" <lpsantil@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 13:12 -0700
    Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-06-26 00:54 -0400
      Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs Andy Walker <news@cuboid.co.uk> - 2014-06-28 20:10 +0100
        Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-06-28 22:43 -0400
          Re: BNF, was specifying semantics wclodius@earthlink.net (William Clodius) - 2014-06-30 22:00 -0600
      Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-06-28 12:25 -0700
        Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs Andy Walker <news@cuboid.co.uk> - 2014-06-29 11:19 +0100
        Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-06-29 07:56 -0400
          Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-06-29 11:49 -0700
            Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-06-30 18:09 -0700
              Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-06-30 20:53 -0700
                Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-07-03 11:51 +0000
                Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-07-03 22:20 -0700
                Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics wclodius@earthlink.net (William Clodius) - 2014-07-04 15:52 -0600
                Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-07-07 05:49 +0000
                Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com> - 2014-07-07 10:48 -0700
                Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-07-07 19:49 +0000
                Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-07-07 19:43 +0000
                Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-07-03 21:44 -0700
            Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-07-02 09:51 +0000
              Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2014-07-03 10:15 -0400
                Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-07-04 06:08 +0000
                Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2014-07-04 08:51 +0200
                Re: Parsing Fortran, was specifying semantics glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-07-04 17:53 +0000
                Re: Parsing Fortran, was specifying semantics wclodius@earthlink.net (William Clodius) - 2014-07-04 15:57 -0600
  Re: Formatting of Language LRMs mertesthomas@gmail.com - 2014-06-30 12:04 -0700
  Re: Formatting of Language LRMs federation2005@netzero.com - 2014-07-28 17:55 -0700
    Re: Formatting of Language LRMs federation2005@netzero.com - 2014-08-01 14:58 -0700

csiph-web