AndrevanTonder wrote:
> I would like to be able to reason about the space behaviour of a
> program using the formal semantics.
Please, no. That would mean that an implementation which did
not exhibit the space behavior you predict that way is not conforming.
It sounds to me like you want a mathematical model of space
behavior *of some particular implementations* (and, you'd want
a proof that that model is consistent with the formal semantics).
The formal semantics should describe, as far as practical, the
constraints that apply to all implementations -- but nothing
more.
-t
> Direct substitution can change a
> program's space behaviour from polynomial to exponential.
>
> Given this, as far a space behaviour is concerned, the current
> semantics is incorrect (compared with the body of the report).
>
> Andre
>
> _______________________________________________
> r6rs-discuss mailing list
> r6rs-discuss_at_lists.r6rs.org
> http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
>
Received on Thu Mar 15 2007 - 13:03:37 UTC