Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end
From: Seima Rao <seimarao@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Semantics, opt in Semantics
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:42:17 +0530
Organization: Compilers Central
Lines: 17
Sender: news@iecc.com
Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID: <15-01-013@comp.compilers>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Trace: miucha.iecc.com 1421421524 69916 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (16 Jan 2015 15:18:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:18:44 +0000 (UTC)
Keywords: semantics, question, comment
Posted-Date: 16 Jan 2015 10:18:44 EST
X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1470

Hi,

    The Backus Naur Form is a great mathematical model. It explains syntax
    quite succintly.

    In that form, the opt qualifier which stands for optional or
    epsilon is utilized extensively for optional syntax.

    Is there something similar for semantics i.e. is there something optional
    in semantics.

    Also, what is the equivalent in semantics of BNF ?

Sincerely,
Seima Rao.
[Man, there's a can of worms. There's no semantic formalism that matches real
semantics as well as BNF matches real syntax. -John]