Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ima.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!cca!ima!compilers
From: compilers@ima.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.compilers
Subject: Denotational semantics
Message-ID: <136300060@ima.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Jan-86 11:20:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ima.136300060
Posted: Thu Jan 16 11:20:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jan-86 02:00:04 EST
Lines: 19
Approved: compilers@ima.uucp
Nf-ID: #N:ima:136300060:000:725
Nf-From: ima!compilers    Jan 16 11:20:00 1986


[from harvard!seismo!mcvax!euroies.UUCP!rshepherd]

Ideally the denotational semantics of a languages supplies its underpinning,
for practical purposes there are better techniques around for dealing with
language semantics. For example with OCCAM we have an underpinning based
on both denotational semantics (for the sequential part of the language)
and on a CSP-like failure set model (for the concurrent part). For practical
purposes it is best to use an algebraic semantics; for example, in
occam there is an equivalence between message passing
and assignment,

CHAN c :  		is equivalant to 
PAR
  c ! e
   c ? v					v := e

this algebraic law is underpinned (mathematically).
Roger Shepherd INMOS (...!euroies!rshepherd)