Expression sequencing/\"standards\"

Thread View: net.lang.c

5 messages

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

5 total messages Started by David Chase Fri, 10 Oct 1986 23:01

#9545

Author: David Chase
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1986 23:01

8 lines
825 bytes

> I find that the Three Holy Documents of C (K&R, H&S, the draft ANSI
> standard) are a little muddy on this point, though I agree with Fabbian.

If the "standard language definition" is ambiguous, then it isn't a
definition.  Have them clean up the definition.  In this case, having an
answer is much more important than which answer you have.

David

Re: Expression sequencing/\"standards\"

#9593

Author: Wayne Throop
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1986 18:08

26 lines
1660 bytes

> rbbb@rice.edu (David Chase)
>> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop)

>> I find that the Three Holy Documents of C (K&R, H&S, the draft ANSI
>> standard) are a little muddy on this point,

> If the "standard language definition" is ambiguous, then it isn't a
> definition.  Have them clean up the definition.  In this case, having an
> answer is much more important than which answer you have.

If you can find me a definition of *anything* (in English, of comparable
complexity to a general purpose computer programming language) which is
unambiguous, then I'll eat the manual this description printed in.
Applying this overly rigid restriction on the meaning of "definition", I
doubt you can find a "definition" of any programming language at all.

However, in a suitable diluted form, I agree with David's point.  On the
other hand, I do think that progress is being made.  H&S is clearer than
K&R on this point, and the draft ANSI C standard is clearer still.

--
Perfection must be reached by degrees;
she requires the slow hand of time.
                                --- Voltaire
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

Re: Expression sequencing/\"standards\"

#9598

Author: throopw Wayne Throop
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1986 20:56

26 lines
1830 bytes

> rbbb@rice.edu (David Chase)
>> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop)

>> I find that the Three Holy Documents of C (K&R, H&S, the draft ANSI
>> standard) are a little muddy on this point,

> If the "standard language definition" is ambiguous, then it isn't a
> definition.  Have them clean up the definition.  In this case, having an
> answer is much more important than which answer you have.

If you can find me a definition of *anything* (in English, of comparable
complexity to a general purpose computer programming language) which is
unambiguous, then I'll eat the manual this description printed in.
Applying this overly rigid restriction on the meaning of "definition", I
doubt you can find a "definition" of any programming language at all.

However, in a suitable diluted form, I agree with David's point.  On the
other hand, I do think that progress is being made.  H&S is clearer than
K&R on this point, and the draft ANSI C standard is clearer still.

--
Perfection must be reached by degrees;
she requires the slow hand of time.
                                --- Voltaire
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

Re: Expression sequencing/\"standards\"

#9713

Author: anw
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1986 17:13

16 lines
1395 bytes

In article <286@ndmce.uucp> in@pollux.UUCP writes:
>If you can find me a definition of *anything* (in English, of comparable
>complexity to a general purpose computer programming language) which is
>unambiguous, then I'll eat the manual this description printed in.

	The Algol 68 definition is known to be unambiguous.  Sadly, it is also
known that all the printed versions contain bugs, some doubtless not yet
discovered.  Oh yes, :-).

	Seriously, W-grammars are *very good* for providing careful definitions
of languages, and it is a shame that they are not more widely used -- many of
the silly arguments one gets into over C and Pascal could easily be resolved
by reference to the standard grammar, if one existed.

						-- Andy Walker
							Maths Dept, Nottm Univ.

Re: Expression sequencing/\"standards\"

#9715

Author: Henry Spencer
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1986 21:36

23 lines
1736 bytes

> >If you can find me a definition of *anything* (in English, of comparable
> >complexity to a general purpose computer programming language) which is
> >unambiguous, then I'll eat the manual this description printed in.
> 
> 	The Algol 68 definition is known to be unambiguous.  ...

It's not written in English.

> ...it is a shame that [W-grammars] are not more widely used -- many of
> the silly arguments one gets into over C and Pascal could easily be resolved
> by reference to the standard grammar, if one existed.

I believe that X3J11 specifically rejected use of a formal mathematical
definition of C (which is what a W-grammar would be) on the grounds that
while it would improve the precision of the definition, it would greatly
reduce the size of the audience that could understand the definition.
Joe Random User, or even Joe Random Compiler Writer, cannot be assumed to
be fluent in W-grammars.  Although there are complicating factors, it would
appear that languages defined in English have been rather more successful
of late than languages defined in formalisms.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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