Talk:Programming language specification - Revision history

Sam Tomato: Change the title from Alphabets to Syntax and added a comment about regular expressions

2024-02-21T21:18:51Z

Change the title from Alphabets to Syntax and added a comment about regular expressions

← Previous revision		Revision as of 21:18, 21 February 2024
Line 36:		Line 36:
	::Formal ''semantics'' is a way of ''explicitly'' writing the language semantics, just as BNF is a formal way of explicitly writing the syntax. Yes, one can also use [[formal specification]] languages to define translators or implementations, but from the perspective of ''language'' specification the definitions of translators and implementations are ''implicit'' definitions of the language syntax and semantics. I'm going to take another stab at reworking the lists. Let me know what you think. --[[User:Allan McInnes\|Allan McInnes]] <small>([[User talk:Allan McInnes\|talk]])</small> 18:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)		::Formal ''semantics'' is a way of ''explicitly'' writing the language semantics, just as BNF is a formal way of explicitly writing the syntax. Yes, one can also use [[formal specification]] languages to define translators or implementations, but from the perspective of ''language'' specification the definitions of translators and implementations are ''implicit'' definitions of the language syntax and semantics. I'm going to take another stab at reworking the lists. Let me know what you think. --[[User:Allan McInnes\|Allan McInnes]] <small>([[User talk:Allan McInnes\|talk]])</small> 18:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

	== ~~Alphabets~~ ==		== Syntax==

	I do not know why people are using the term ''alphabet'' in the context of computer languages. The terms ''characters'' and ''character sets'' are totally valid and reasonable. The article currently says that the language syntax usually consists of, among other things, an alphabet. I will change that to character set. For one thing, an alphabet is only letters, no digits and no punctuation. [[User:Sam Tomato\|Sam Tomato]] ([[User talk:Sam Tomato\|talk]]) 21:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)		I do not know why people are using the term ''alphabet'' in the context of computer languages. The terms ''characters'' and ''character sets'' are totally valid and reasonable. The article currently says that the language syntax usually consists of, among other things, an alphabet. I will change that to character set. For one thing, an alphabet is only letters, no digits and no punctuation. [[User:Sam Tomato\|Sam Tomato]] ([[User talk:Sam Tomato\|talk]]) 21:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

			Also, it is not true that the specifications of languages use regular expressions to define the language. Some '''compilers''' might use regular expressions but not the specifications. I however am not sure what term(s) to use to describe the specifications. [[User:Sam Tomato\|Sam Tomato]] ([[User talk:Sam Tomato\|talk]]) 21:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sam Tomato: /* Alphabets */ new section

2024-02-21T21:09:40Z

Alphabets: new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 21:09, 21 February 2024
Line 35:		Line 35:

	::Formal ''semantics'' is a way of ''explicitly'' writing the language semantics, just as BNF is a formal way of explicitly writing the syntax. Yes, one can also use [[formal specification]] languages to define translators or implementations, but from the perspective of ''language'' specification the definitions of translators and implementations are ''implicit'' definitions of the language syntax and semantics. I'm going to take another stab at reworking the lists. Let me know what you think. --[[User:Allan McInnes\|Allan McInnes]] <small>([[User talk:Allan McInnes\|talk]])</small> 18:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)		::Formal ''semantics'' is a way of ''explicitly'' writing the language semantics, just as BNF is a formal way of explicitly writing the syntax. Yes, one can also use [[formal specification]] languages to define translators or implementations, but from the perspective of ''language'' specification the definitions of translators and implementations are ''implicit'' definitions of the language syntax and semantics. I'm going to take another stab at reworking the lists. Let me know what you think. --[[User:Allan McInnes\|Allan McInnes]] <small>([[User talk:Allan McInnes\|talk]])</small> 18:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

			== Alphabets ==

			I do not know why people are using the term ''alphabet'' in the context of computer languages. The terms ''characters'' and ''character sets'' are totally valid and reasonable. The article currently says that the language syntax usually consists of, among other things, an alphabet. I will change that to character set. For one thing, an alphabet is only letters, no digits and no punctuation. [[User:Sam Tomato\|Sam Tomato]] ([[User talk:Sam Tomato\|talk]]) 21:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl (bot): Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)

2024-02-01T11:58:01Z

Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 11:58, 1 February 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject ~~Computing~~ \|class=Start}}		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|
			{{WikiProject Computing }}
			}}
	{{summary in\|Programming language}}		{{summary in\|Programming language}}

Meno25: Assessment: Computing: class=Start (assisted)

2017-05-11T18:22:18Z

Assessment: Computing: class=Start (assisted)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 18:22, 11 May 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject Computing}}		{{WikiProject Computing \|class=Start}}
	{{summary in\|Programming language}}		{{summary in\|Programming language}}

Jerryobject: /* Test suites */ WP:LINK WP:Disambiguate.

2016-06-27T06:41:28Z

Test suites: WP:LINK WP:Disambiguate.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 06:41, 27 June 2016
Line 4:		Line 4:
	== Test suites ==		== Test suites ==

	I am not aware of any language that is defined purely in terms of the behavior required by a test suite. If you define a test suite as the set of all programs written in a language, then there are some languages that could be said to be defined in terms of the programs that currently exist. But I don't know of any language where a ''hand written'' test suite plays a strong part in the language definition (although [[Ada]] comes close; I have heard stories of how the language definition was changed to match that of the test suite). [[User:Derek farn\|Derek farn]] 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)		I am not aware of any language that is defined purely in terms of the behavior required by a test suite. If you define a test suite as the set of all programs written in a language, then there are some languages that could be said to be defined in terms of the programs that currently exist. But I don't know of any language where a ''hand written'' test suite plays a strong part in the language definition (although [[Ada (programming language)\|Ada]] comes close; I have heard stories of how the language definition was changed to match that of the test suite). [[User:Derek farn\|Derek farn]] 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:[http://www.ada-auth.org/ Does this count?] It is not part of the Ada Reference Manual, but in practice it plays a role in the social process of Ada programming and implementation not unlike that of a part of the language specification. [[User:K.lee\|k.lee]] 22:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)		:[http://www.ada-auth.org/ Does this count?] It is not part of the Ada Reference Manual, but in practice it plays a role in the social process of Ada programming and implementation not unlike that of a part of the language specification. [[User:K.lee\|k.lee]] 22:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian75: Assessment: +Computing (assisted)

2014-04-27T10:57:58Z

Assessment: +Computing (assisted)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 10:57, 27 April 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject Computing}}
	{{summary in\|Programming language}}		{{summary in\|Programming language}}

	== Test suites ==		== Test suites ==

Pcap: {{summary in|Programming language}}

2009-09-03T17:39:10Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 17:39, 3 September 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{summary in\|Programming language}}
	== Test suites ==		== Test suites ==

Allan McInnes: /* Lists in the leader */ reply

2006-06-09T18:35:33Z

Lists in the leader: reply

← Previous revision		Revision as of 18:35, 9 June 2006
Line 28:		Line 28:

	: I am not happy with the term 'entities', but what else would you call something that could be an translator, a language, or an implementation? Formal semantics is a way of writing a specification, but this specification could be of a translator, source code, or an implementation. [[User:Derek farn\|Derek farn]] 17:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)		: I am not happy with the term 'entities', but what else would you call something that could be an translator, a language, or an implementation? Formal semantics is a way of writing a specification, but this specification could be of a translator, source code, or an implementation. [[User:Derek farn\|Derek farn]] 17:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

			::Formal ''semantics'' is a way of ''explicitly'' writing the language semantics, just as BNF is a formal way of explicitly writing the syntax. Yes, one can also use [[formal specification]] languages to define translators or implementations, but from the perspective of ''language'' specification the definitions of translators and implementations are ''implicit'' definitions of the language syntax and semantics. I'm going to take another stab at reworking the lists. Let me know what you think. --[[User:Allan McInnes\|Allan McInnes]] <small>([[User talk:Allan McInnes\|talk]])</small> 18:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Derek farn: Lists in the leader

2006-06-09T17:48:23Z

Lists in the leader

← Previous revision		Revision as of 17:48, 9 June 2006
Line 26:		Line 26:

	The lists in the leader make no sense to me. One claims to be about "entities that are usually included in a specification", and yet keeps getting edited as if it was "ways to specify a language". The second list claims to be about "ways to write a specification", and (given the current introductory sentence of the list) ends up effectively claiming that ''"The behavior of a ''model'' implementation written in a [[programming language]] (e.g., [[Prolog]])"'' (and "entity" from the first list) can be ''"written using a [[natural language]]"''. Which makes no sense at all. What exactly is the point of having these separate lists, other than an apparent desire to move any mention of formal semantics out of the first list? --[[User:Allan McInnes\|Allan McInnes]] <small>([[User talk:Allan McInnes\|talk]])</small> 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)		The lists in the leader make no sense to me. One claims to be about "entities that are usually included in a specification", and yet keeps getting edited as if it was "ways to specify a language". The second list claims to be about "ways to write a specification", and (given the current introductory sentence of the list) ends up effectively claiming that ''"The behavior of a ''model'' implementation written in a [[programming language]] (e.g., [[Prolog]])"'' (and "entity" from the first list) can be ''"written using a [[natural language]]"''. Which makes no sense at all. What exactly is the point of having these separate lists, other than an apparent desire to move any mention of formal semantics out of the first list? --[[User:Allan McInnes\|Allan McInnes]] <small>([[User talk:Allan McInnes\|talk]])</small> 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

			: I am not happy with the term 'entities', but what else would you call something that could be an translator, a language, or an implementation? Formal semantics is a way of writing a specification, but this specification could be of a translator, source code, or an implementation. [[User:Derek farn\|Derek farn]] 17:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Allan McInnes: /* Automated tools */ formal verification

2006-06-09T15:37:27Z

Automated tools: formal verification

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:37, 9 June 2006
Line 20:		Line 20:

	:I think the new wording makes the point that it is all about the computation resources required vs. the amount of analysis that is being attempted. After all compilers perform some kinds of analysis and they can compile the biggest programs that exist ;-) [[User:Derek farn\|Derek farn]] 23:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)		:I think the new wording makes the point that it is all about the computation resources required vs. the amount of analysis that is being attempted. After all compilers perform some kinds of analysis and they can compile the biggest programs that exist ;-) [[User:Derek farn\|Derek farn]] 23:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

			::How do you define "''full'' formal verification"? --[[User:Allan McInnes\|Allan McInnes]] <small>([[User talk:Allan McInnes\|talk]])</small> 15:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Lists in the leader ==		== Lists in the leader ==