[r6rs-discuss] operational or denotational semantics?

From: Robby Findler <robby>
Date: Sun Feb 25 09:18:56 2007

If you think you can accomplish such a thing for a non-trivial subset
of the language, please do submit it to the editors.

Robby

On 2/25/07, Thomas Lord <lord_at_emf.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> r6rs-discuss mailing list
> r6rs-discuss_at_lists.r6rs.org
> http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
>
Received on Sun Feb 25 2007 - 09:18:43 UTC

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