Boost logo

Boost :

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
for semantics")

Jonathan Turkanis

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