Re: semantics for F_{sub,rec} ??

• To: Thomas Streicher <streicher@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>
• Subject: Re: semantics for F_{sub,rec} ??
• From: Matthias Felleisen <matthias@ccs.neu.edu>
• Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:50:10 -0500 (EST)
• CC: types@cis.upenn.edu, Thomas Streicher <streicher@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>
• In-Reply-To: <200210161300.g9GD0K2g018616@saul.cis.upenn.edu>
• References: <200210161300.g9GD0K2g018616@saul.cis.upenn.edu>

Thomas, you wrote: 

"if it turns out as built on sand (in the sense that it lacks a good
semantics for the target language used in these translational
interpretations)."

Would you mind illustrating this "building on sand" portion of your
letter with, oh say, one or two practical examples? 
 - How would programmers suffer from a lack of a classical semantics?
 - How would programming language researchers suffer? 
 - What can go wrong? 

Thanks -- Matthias

• Prev: paper: towards a quantum programming language
• Next: TLCA 2003 Last call for papers
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread