|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The Eiffel assignment operator is actually ":=", with "=" representing
> (value) equality. But hey, I wouldn't know a "formal lanuage" if it hit
> me...
A formal language is one with semantics defined by rewrite rules, for
example. I.e., one concrete enough you can actually prove things about it.
Eiffel's pre and post conditions are a first step towards that.
>>> I think he was trying to counter the old "there is no mathematical
>>> theory to OOP".
>>
>> And for the most part there isn't. There's hand-waving mathematics,
>> but not something precise enough you can automate it.
>
> It's more the point that every OOP language has a slightly different
> idea about the precise definition of "object", "class", "inheritance",
> and so forth.
That's not really the problem, as long as you define it precisely.
> Even Haskell doesn't actually possess a denotational semantics - what
> ever the hell *that* means!
I need to go watch some football with the wife, but I'll give you an example
of LOTOS's semantics later, if you remind me. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |