Re: Formally Defining a Programming Language

"s_dubrovich@yahoo.com" <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com>
Sun, 27 Nov 2011 20:58:37 -0800 (PST)

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Formally Defining a Programming Language seimarao@gmail.com (Seima Rao) (2011-11-19)
Re: Formally Defining a Programming Language kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2011-11-21)
Re: Formally Defining a Programming Language christophe@taodyne.com (Christophe de Dinechin) (2011-11-22)
Re: Formally Defining a Programming Language s_dubrovich@yahoo.com (s_dubrovich@yahoo.com) (2011-11-27)
Re: Formally Defining a Programming Language federation2005@netzero.com (2012-02-29)
Re: Formally Defining a Programming Language gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-03-02)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "s_dubrovich@yahoo.com" <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 20:58:37 -0800 (PST)
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 11-11-039 11-11-044
Keywords: design
Posted-Date: 28 Nov 2011 00:12:40 EST

> > ii) How did the designers come up with
> > something called a "specifier"?


It is a practical need. With a language in one hand and the need to
implement it in the other hand.
Take the identifier 'a'. Does it represent a variable, a function, or
what? The language syntax should help indicate which. Let's say the
syntax indicates it is a variable. Now comes the implementation and
use of it as a variable. This forces consideration of the underlying
hardware which may very well handle variables of 'float' differently
than those of 'int', and that 'sign' maybe an issue in
implementation. So to pass along more information about 'a', a meta-
term is given called "specifier". And a need to inform the translator
about such attributes of 'a' gives rise to another meta-term
"declaration".


Section 4. What's in a name?


C bases the interpretation of an identifier upon two attributes of the
identifier: its _storage class_ and its _type_. ...


> ...
> ROFL! The word "specifier" is just something that popped into
> someone's head, that's all.
>
> You're not going to achieve formality just by mimicing some jargon
> from C and C++.
>
> To define a language formally, you have to say exactly what is the
> structure and behavior of each construct.
>


Doesn't LISP fit this though?


Steve


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.