From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-27 15:41:08
Simon Buchan wrote:
> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>> Note that I'm not criticising the standard (although it certainly
>> has some problems with lack of precision). It would be nice to have
>> a truly formal specification, but in the case of C++ it's probably
>> not realistic.
> I do think it's possible
I said 'realistic'
> (If it wasn't, we wouldn't be able to write
> compilers for it!),
That's like saying: Of course it must be possible to provide a formal semantics
for English -- otherwise I'd never be able to understand the instructiosn that
come with my coffee maker :-)
> but remember the standard has basicly grown out of
> rewordings from the days of C (which did likewise back to B, etc...)
> I think a formal, but human-readable, grammar, kind of like EBNF for
> semantics, would be useful here.
It would be very useful (except I'm not sure what you mean by "kind of like EBNF
-- Jonathan Turkanis www.kangaroologic.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk