Semantic definition style

Thread View: comp.specification

1 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

1 total messages Started by Cliff B Jones Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:52

#393

Author: Cliff B Jones
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:52

29 lines
1471 bytes

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

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads