On Feb 25, 2007, at 9:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:19:30 -0800
From: Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [r6rs-discuss] operational or denotational semantics?
To: R6RS <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
R6RS should have both, with a consistency proof, page count
be damned.
A conservative denotational as "must" and a usable
operational as "for example".
Since Scheme is still observably sequential, I urge you to use the
category of Observably Sequential Functions instead of plain
Continuous Functions just so that the denotational equivalence gets
closer to truth (observational equivalence, as defined via
denotations). I'd also like to see an attempt made to eliminate the
store and continuation passing style aspects of the semantic mapping
because I suspect that this poses additional problems.
Literature hints available on request.
-- Matthias
member of the Knights for Combatting Rumors on the Usefulness of
Denotational Semantics vs Operational Semantics
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
