Boost logo

Boost :

From: Simon Buchan (simon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-23 00:46:49

Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>>Very interesting.
>>First I'm surprised that anyone else was even looking at that thread
>>after all this time.
>>Its clear that there is a strong parallel here - maybe even a
>>one-to-one correspondence.
>>I've concluded that the concept of Semantic really isn't formal. Its a
>>narrative description of
>>what someone expects an expression to do.
> Right. Coming from mathematical logic it's clear to me that usual concept
> definitions aren't really formal. I'd call them 'semi-formal'. If you wanted to
> write a truly formal specification, you'd first have to describe an abstract
> machine to represent C++ programs and their execution environments, because the
> C++ standard isn't really formal, either.
> --
> Jonathan Turkanis
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Interesting: an 'abstract machine' representing the compiler is almost
exactly the informal description used by version of the standard I saw
(in the "as if" rule) for itself: basicly the standard is a
human-readable (barely) compiler. The problem I have with the standard
is that it's bloody hard to read, even when it doesn't actually increase
accuracy. (Without a copy with me, I don't have a reference, sorry. It
doesn't help that I would have to get it delivered from overseas to get
it :-)

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at