Re: Formal semantics for C

To: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au
Subject: Re: Formal semantics for C
From: Matthias Felleisen <matthias@ccs.neu.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 08:26:42 -0500 (EST)
Cc: cork@rice.edu, kfl@it.edu, types@cis.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: <20011228001534.A8225@hg.cs.mu.oz.au> (message from Fergus Henderson on Fri, 28 Dec 2001 00:15:34 +1100)
References: <200112251446.fBPEk5Q19557@saul.cis.upenn.edu> <15401.31359.196762.870718@frosty.cs.rice.edu> <20011228001534.A8225@hg.cs.mu.oz.au>
Reply-To: matthias@ccs.neu.edu

Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> writes: 

> Undefined behaviour can be handled by having the denotation of the program
> as a whole be the universal set of all possible behaviours.

If you call this mathematically useful, please don't let us stop you from
spending your time on designing a "semantics" for C (or whatever). 

It is my believe that C is an "assembly" language for building and
"scripting" Unix and that the people who designed C didn't think about
a mathematical, machine-independent semantics and, frankly, they and their
friends who use it, probably don't care about it. 

-- Matthias

Follow-Ups:

Re: Formal semantics for C

From: Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>

References:

Re: Formal semantics for C

From: Corky Cartwright <cork@rice.edu>

Re: Formal semantics for C

From: Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>