Re: [boost] [serialization docs] Ping?

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
www.kangaroologic.com