User loginNavigation 
simpler representation of operational semantics?While trying to learn the formal notation used in TAPL (and many other papers), I found this paper ... Syntactic Theories of Sequential COntrol and State by Matthias Felleisen. I didn't find this mentioned in any previous discussion on LTU (even though it is from 1992). This paper, as far as I can tell, seems to represent the same idea of TAPL notation in a much more concise manner. For example (horrible 'summary' follows), in Pierce's book (page 72), some rules are listed as follows: Syntax: For t > t' t1 > t1'  t1 t2 > t1' t2 [EAPP1] According to Felleisen's paper, these rules could be written as: For t > t' C[t] > C[t'] If we extend the syntax with the following: In other words, we don't have to have such verbose rules because 'C' can represent a 'hole' for a term or its reduction. Ok, this is obviously not a summary of the paper but a question. Is my understanding correct? Is it of any value? I would think so, if one is trying to build 'executable' operational semantics. No? by the way, I found this article through another paper on Operational Semantics for Scheme. This paper (I haven't attempted reading it yet) has further discussion of Felleisen's paper. By shahbaz at 20050808 22:06  LtU Forum  previous forum topic  next forum topic  other blogs  6600 reads

Browse archivesActive forum topics 
Recent comments
1 day 2 hours ago
1 day 4 hours ago
1 day 4 hours ago
1 day 5 hours ago
1 day 6 hours ago
1 day 6 hours ago
1 day 13 hours ago
1 day 13 hours ago
1 day 13 hours ago
2 days 5 hours ago