From: dee@linus.UUCP (David E. Emery)
Subject: Re: FOR Iteration Scheme
Date: 19 Jul 88 20:43:17 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <36529@linus.UUCP> (raw)
In-Reply-To: pattis@june.cs.washington.edu's message of 18 Jul 88 20:15:33 GMT
>From: pattis@june.cs.washington.edu (Richard Pattis)
> In the process of writing a CS-1 book that uses Ada as its langauge of
>discourse, I am trying to describe formally the semantics of the FOR iteration
>scheme using other parts of Ada (whose semantics I explain operationally). Is
>the following the most accurate statement I can make? CAUTION: I am in the
>process of learning Ada (trying to compose such explanations helps me), so
>this may be a naive question.
This might also be a naive question: Why are you writing a book about
a language you do not know?
Didn't the Boehm-Jacobini proof demonstrate the semantics of FOR loops
using iteration and selection?
dave emery
emery@mitre-bedford.arpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1988-07-19 20:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1988-07-18 20:15 FOR Iteration Scheme Richard Pattis
1988-07-19 20:43 ` David E. Emery [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1988-07-19 13:52 John.Goodenough
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox