[r6rs-discuss] Re: [Formal] Allow compilers to reject obvious violations

From: Matthias Felleisen <matthias>
Date: Sun Feb 25 18:41:40 2007

On Feb 25, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Will Clinger wrote:

>> My own research has suggested time and again that denotational
>> semantics isn't truly up to the task in many cases so I prefer
>> operational semantics, like SML's. The one that comes with R6RS has
>> the advantage that it is a semi-algorithm.
>
> Reading that, a less charitable reader than I might
> conclude you do not realize that both denotational and
> operational semantics can be formal, that both can be
> executable, and that neither has to be executable.

Denotational semantics isn't executable. An operational semantics
approximating the enumeration behavior of denotational semantics is.

I also suspect that most people know that I have done some serious
work on both and others can find out.

> People are discussing real issues in this thread.

Why do you insinuate that I am not? Insulting potential users doesn't
resolve the issue of specifying when compilers are allowed to abandon
compilation.

-- Matthias
Received on Sun Feb 25 2007 - 18:41:34 UTC