User loginNavigation |
Some stupid questions on denotational semanticsI am not sure whether it is appropriate to ask for advice in this forum. If it isn't, please feel free to ignore/delete this message. I have some questions regarding denotational semantics. I know operational semantics very well, but I did not yet understand some basic things about the denotational approach. 1. Every textbook says that "compositionality" is a very important property of d.s. I understand what this means. However, I have nowhere read *why* this is such an important property and what the consequences of being compositional are. 2. The examples of d.s. that are in most textbooks are so simple that they look trivially equivalent to a corresponding operational semantics. However, I read that d.s. is a more "abstract", "high-level" approach to describing the semantics. What would be an example where this property is evident in comparison to op. sem. ? Also, what are in general the advantages/disadvantages compared to op.sem.? 3. I have heard people say that writing an interpreter for a language in Haskell is roughly equivalent to writing a denotational semantics for it. Could somebody enlighten me why (or why not) this is the case? By Klaus Ostermann at 2004-06-23 21:03 | LtU Forum | previous forum topic | next forum topic | other blogs | 17564 reads
|
Browse archives
Active forum topics |
Recent comments
25 weeks 6 days ago
25 weeks 6 days ago
25 weeks 6 days ago
48 weeks 1 day ago
1 year 2 days ago
1 year 1 week ago
1 year 1 week ago
1 year 4 weeks ago
1 year 9 weeks ago
1 year 9 weeks ago