Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end From: Hans Aberg Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Semantics, opt in Semantics Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 18:20:13 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 13 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <15-01-022@comp.compilers> References: <15-01-013@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: miucha.iecc.com 1421478758 97117 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (17 Jan 2015 07:12:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 07:12:38 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: semantics Posted-Date: 17 Jan 2015 02:12:38 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:1479 On 2015/01/15 13:12, Seima Rao wrote: > Is there something similar for semantics i.e. is there something optional > in semantics. ... > [Man, there's a can of worms. There's no semantic formalism that matches real > semantics as well as BNF matches real syntax. -John] There is denotational semantics, though. Dave Schmidt's 1986 book is now available for free: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotational_semantics http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~schmidt/text/densem.html