[r6rs-discuss] operational or denotational semantics?

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Thomas Lord <lord>
Date: Sun Feb 25 01:11:02 2007

R6RS should have both, with a consistency proof, page count
be damned.

A conservative denotational as "must" and a usable
operational as "for example".

-t
Received on Sun Feb 25 2007 - 01:19:30 UTC

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Anton van Straaten: "[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Allow compilers to reject obvious violations"
Previous message: Arthur A. Gleckler: "[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Allow compilers to reject obvious violations"
Next in thread: Robby Findler: "[r6rs-discuss] operational or denotational semantics?"
Reply: Robby Findler: "[r6rs-discuss] operational or denotational semantics?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Oct 23 2024 - 09:15:01 UTC