I'd just like to express my enthusiasm for taking a formal approach to the
kernel language. For everything outside the kernel, defining it by
self-hosting, by a meta-circular interpreter (where the interpreter is
written only in the kernel subset of the language) or by desugaring is fine.
These
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
I'd just like to express my enthusiasm for taking a formal approach to the
kernel language. For everything outside the kernel, defining it by
self-hosting, by a meta-circular interpreter (where the interpreter is
Of Mark S. Miller
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:52 AM
To: Joseph Politz; Arjun Guha; Ankur Taly; John Mitchell; Sergio Maffeis
Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Specification Language
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Mark S. Miller
erig...@google.commailto:erig...@google.com wrote:
I'd just
I'd just like to express my enthusiasm for taking a formal approach to the
kernel language. For everything outside the kernel, defining it by
self-hosting, by a meta-circular interpreter (where the interpreter is
written only in the kernel subset of the language) or by desugaring is fine.
*To:* Joseph Politz; Arjun Guha; Ankur Taly; John Mitchell; Sergio Maffeis
*Cc:* es-discuss@mozilla.org
*Subject:* Re: Specification Language
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com
wrote:
I'd just like to express my enthusiasm for taking a formal approach
20, 2010 1:37 PM
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock
Cc: Joseph Politz; Arjun Guha; Ankur Taly; John Mitchell; Sergio Maffeis;
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Specification Language
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.commailto:allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com
I wrote:
As you know, I have avoided looking at this until the IPR situation was
straightened out. Since it now seems to be, could you (or someone
representing Ecma) repost this with a BSD license?
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com wrote:
I wonder if you can answer some of the metacircularity concerns by
defining the necessary parts using operational semantics, as in
http://jssec.net/semantics/sjs.pdf .
As an aside, has anyone actually attempted to formally document the
necessary kernel subset (apart from the above paper)?
--
Arjun Guha, Claudio Saftoiu and Shriram Krishnamurthi have a recent paper on
the topic:
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/gsk-essence-javascript/
Having had some experience with this question myself, let me just say that
while formalization is appealing, it's a
I don't agree with this. Two of us formalized, implemented, and tested
that paper in a month. That is hardly time-consuming, and it's not
very subtle since we have test suites to test our formalization.
I brought up your paper because it's good work. I wasn't criticizing it. But
there's a
I brought up your paper because it's good work. I wasn't criticizing it. But
there's a difference between formalizing the operational core of a language
and writing a language standard.
To be clear, we formalized much more than an operational core of the
language. We've formalized a portion
You're still not understanding me. My cat could write an executable
implementation of the ES standard library. (Seriously, he's an amazing cat.)
The point is whether you can hit the right level of abstraction, the right
level of presentation, and the right level of specification-- neither over-
You're still not understanding me. My cat could write an executable
implementation of the ES standard library. (Seriously, he's an amazing cat.)
Hm. I was feeling silly at the time but that just came across mean. Sorry about
that. All I meant was that there's more to the spec than just
2010/5/19 David Herman dher...@mozilla.com:
You're still not understanding me. My cat could write an executable
implementation of the ES standard library. (Seriously, he's an amazing cat.)
Hm. I was feeling silly at the time but that just came across mean. Sorry
about that. All I meant was
d) If you're serious about suggesting lambda-JS as a basis (or starting
point, anyway) for future editions of ECMA-262, may I make a suggestion? Do a
proof-of-concept by taking the ES5 document and rewriting some of it in your
suggested style.
If I understand your suggestion right, this is
I would like to see the next edition of the specification use the
ECMAScript language to describe the ECMAScript language. I think this
would significantly improve the likelihood that a programmer could
correctly understand ECMAScript by reading the standard. I think that
would make the web a
On 17/05/2010 2:48 PM, Douglas Crockford wrote:
I would like to see the next edition of the specification use the
ECMAScript language to describe the ECMAScript language. I think this
would significantly improve the likelihood that a programmer could
correctly understand ECMAScript by reading
17 matches
Mail list logo
