[r6rs-discuss] operational or denotational semantics?

From: Robby Findler <robby.findler>
Date: Sun Feb 25 21:40:01 2007

On 2/25/07, Thomas Lord <lord_at_emf.net> wrote:
> Robby Findler wrote:
> > If you think you can accomplish such a thing for a non-trivial subset
> > of the language, please do submit it to the editors.
>
> Could you unpack that a little bit?
>
> I'm not sure if you are trying to say that the math is too hard
> or the required labor too great.

I'm just saying two simple things, really:

 - Such a thing has never been achieved before (feel free to draw your
own conclusions as to why :).

 - Please, if you think you can be the first, do jump in and go do it.
The current operational semantics is there only because we jumped in
and did it.

As to the rest of your message, I doubt I'm the most qualified here to
answer you, but probably the best way to get the answers is for you to
study these things yourself.

Good luck,
Robby
Received on Sun Feb 25 2007 - 21:39:57 UTC