Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
Very interesting.
First I'm surprised that anyone else was even looking at that thread after all this time.
Its clear that there is a strong parallel here - maybe even a one-to-one correspondence.
I've concluded that the concept of Semantic really isn't formal. Its a narrative description of what someone expects an expression to do.
Right. Coming from mathematical logic it's clear to me that usual concept definitions aren't really formal. I'd call them 'semi-formal'. If you wanted to write a truly formal specification, you'd first have to describe an abstract machine to represent C++ programs and their execution environments, because the C++ standard isn't really formal, either.
-- Jonathan Turkanis www.kangaroologic.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Interesting: an 'abstract machine' representing the compiler is almost exactly the informal description used by version of the standard I saw (in the "as if" rule) for itself: basicly the standard is a human-readable (barely) compiler. The problem I have with the standard is that it's bloody hard to read, even when it doesn't actually increase accuracy. (Without a copy with me, I don't have a reference, sorry. It doesn't help that I would have to get it delivered from overseas to get it :-)