Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!chl
From: chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Relationship between C and C++
Message-ID: <1133@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Mar 90 09:40:02 GMT
References: <19255@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> <10049@st_nik.UUCP>
Organization: Dept. Of Comp Sci, Univ. of Manchester, UK.
Lines: 19

burr@st_nik.UUCP (For Steve Burr) writes:

>In article <19255@megaron.cs.arizona.edu>, gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>> In article  <4869@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
>> Sure, but first show me your denotational model of Ada.
>> 
>Certainly, A formal specification of ADA is described using
>the Vienna Development Method in:

>"Towards a formal definition of ADA", D.Bjorner et al
>Springer Verlag.

BUT, I rather think this formal definition left out the interesting bits,
notably the tasking, which rather defeats the object of the exercise.

The point is that denotational semantics has to make a big meal of any sort of
nondeterminacy, with the result that even if it can be done it does not lead
to a readily understandable language definition. Moreover, there is also a
temptation to over-define a language.