🚀 go-pugleaf

I should like to add a thought in reply to:

>From song@minster.york.ac.uk Sun Nov 15 14:29:07 1992
>Article: 986 of comp.specification
>I am aware that there are four different styles to define semantics.
>	operational
>	denotational
>	algebraic 
>...

I have written (in various texts on VDM (as applied to language
semantics)) about the conventional use of these terms but I have
recently come to doubt the divisions.

What has caused this rethink is that I have been working on an
object-based design language whose semantics I am giving by a mapping
into Milner's \pi calculus. What sort of semantics does that make it?

I choose \pi calculus because its algebra enables me to prove theorems
(relatively) easily. Really I am just mapping a language whose
semantics needs giving into one which is "understood" because I like
the algebraic laws of the latter. Where does this leave so-called
denotational semantics? Were we not just mapping (in the style of
Landin's original paper) into Lambda calculus because we could
manipulate it? 

I think Peter Mosses' work is an attempt to do this better.

cliff jones