Re: Character found in national standard not defined in Unicode?

From: David Starner (
Date: Fri Apr 25 2008 - 17:22:55 CDT

  • Next message: George W Gerrity: "Re: Semantics of Standards (was Re: Character found in national standard not defined in Unicode?)"

    On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:30 AM, George W Gerrity
    <> wrote:
    > To people writing specifications for Programming Languages, the difficulty
    > of specifying meaning (or correct behaviour) in a Natural Language is well
    > known. That is why specifications for newer Programming Languages are
    > written in a meta-language, whose semantics and syntax is defined abstractly
    > and Mathematically.

    That's not how I would describe it. The grammar of Algol 60 was
    described with Backus-Naur form, and just about every standardized
    language since has used BNF or the equivalent to specify the grammar.
    The meaning, however, is a much hairier beast. IIRC, Algol 68 tried to
    formally specify meaning, but was considered a failure. Most
    standardized languages since have used English to specify meaning
    instead of any mathematical meta-language.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 25 2008 - 17:26:24 CDT