home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27 / NN_1992_27.iso / spool / comp / specific / 546 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-11-20  |  1.4 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
  2. From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
  3. Newsgroups: comp.specification
  4. Subject: Re: Semantic definition style
  5. Keywords: structural operational semantics, denotational semantics
  6. Message-ID: <56501@dime.cs.umass.edu>
  7. Date: 20 Nov 92 13:02:33 GMT
  8. References: <1992Nov11.195443.23006@cis.ohio-state.edu> <1992Nov13.084826.26088@daimi.aau.dk> <1992Nov18.010421.11712@cis.ohio-state.edu>
  9. Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
  10. Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
  11. Lines: 19
  12.  
  13. In article <1992Nov18.010421.11712@cis.ohio-state.edu> ogden@seal.cis.ohio-state.edu (William F Ogden) writes:
  14. >Indeed. You don't get very far into object based programming before
  15. >you notice that functions just don't provide an adequate base for
  16. >the semantics of even sequential programming with objects. The
  17. >abstraction process that permits alternative realizations of operations
  18. >as well as information hiding inherently leads to what appears at the
  19. >abstract object level to be nondeterminism. The obvious denotational
  20. >semantics to cover this are relational and not functional.
  21.  
  22. Alternatively, one can consider specifications to identify classes of
  23. similar functions. For example, Stack(f,l) might define a class of stack
  24. implementations, parameterized by length 'l'. 
  25.  
  26.  
  27. -- 
  28.  
  29.  
  30. yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
  31.  
  32.