Re: Semantic definition style

Article View: comp.specification

Article #406

Back to comp.specification Previous Next

#406

From: victor yodaiken
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:02

18 lines
1430 bytes

In article <1992Nov18.010421.11712@cis.ohio-state.edu> ogden@seal.cis.ohio-state.edu (William F Ogden) writes:
>Indeed. You don't get very far into object based programming before
>you notice that functions just don't provide an adequate base for
>the semantics of even sequential programming with objects. The
>abstraction process that permits alternative realizations of operations
>as well as information hiding inherently leads to what appears at the
>abstract object level to be nondeterminism. The obvious denotational
>semantics to cover this are relational and not functional.

Alternatively, one can consider specifications to identify classes of
similar functions. For example, Stack(f,l) might define a class of stack
implementations, parameterized by length 'l'. 


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Technical Details

Message-ID: <56501@dime.cs.umass.edu>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken

References:

<1992Nov11.195443.23006@cis.ohio-state.edu> <1992Nov13.084826.26088@daimi.aau.dk> <1992Nov18.010421.11712@cis.ohio-state.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: comp.specification
Subject: Re: Semantic definition style
Keywords: structural operational semantics, denotational semantics
Message-ID: <56501@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:02:33 GMT
References: <1992Nov11.195443.23006@cis.ohio-state.edu> <1992Nov13.084826.26088@daimi.aau.dk> <1992Nov18.010421.11712@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 19

Reply to Parent Message