Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!decvax!ima!compilers-sender From: jbs@fenchurch.mit.edu (Jeff Siegal) Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Why Can't We Build a C Compiler? Message-ID: <3151@ima.ima.isc.com> Date: 3 Jan 89 20:24:08 GMT References: <3099@ima.ima.isc.com> Sender: compilers-sender@ima.ima.isc.com Reply-To: jbs@fenchurch.mit.edu (Jeff Siegal) Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA Lines: 17 Approved: compilers@ima.UUCP In article <3099@ima.ima.isc.com> Nick Rothwell writes: >Standard ML is, >to my knowledge, the only language to have a complete formal semantics >(which is *not* huge - 97 pages). Does Ada have one? How big is it? Scheme has a formal semantics which is about 3 or 4 pages long. It probably doesn't serve much purpose to list other languages which are formally defined (I'm sure there are some), but I did want to point that they exist. Jeff Siegal -- Send compilers articles to ima!compilers or, in a pinch, to Levine@YALE.EDU Plausible paths are { decvax | harvard | yale | bbn}!ima Please send responses to the originator of the message -- I cannot forward mail accidentally sent back to compilers. Meta-mail to ima!compilers-request