Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Need C language Description
Message-ID: <1988Aug2.233758.25939@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <12707@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1104@garth.UUCP> <8270@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1112@garth.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 88 23:37:58 GMT

In article <1112@garth.UUCP> smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) writes:
>...something like the PL/I
>definition or the Revised Algol 68 Report. Formal syntax, context free and
>context sensitive, and formal semantics.
>
>If there was a formal definition, three-quarters of the topics in
>comp.lang.c would never appear.

Ho ho.  No, it's not that simple.  The problem with formal definitions like
the PL/I definition and the Revised Algol 68 Report is that they are
hideously unreadable.  X3J11 talked about the possibility earlier on, and
quickly rejected it, on the grounds that a less formal description was far
more accessible to users and implementors.
-- 
MSDOS is not dead, it just     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
smells that way.               | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu