On Feb 12, 2007, at 1:31 PM, Kirsten Chevalier wrote:
On 2/11/07, Matt Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Exactly what are the operational and denotational semantics of
core?
Since I don't think this question has been answered yet, here's a
mailing list post from Simon PJ that probably answers it:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2003-
February/004849.html
That's from 2003, but I don't think the answer has changed since then.
If you wrote down a precise operational and/or denotational semantics
for Core, you'd probably have a research paper. (Especially if you
proved that GHC actually obeys that semantics...) (Disclaimer: my name
isn't Simon.)
At the risk of sounding self-promoting, I'd like to point out that
the research paper I recently announced defines an intermediate
language that is similar to GHC's core in some respects (they are
both based on System F_omega). I give a full (call-by-name)
operational semantics and type system for the language in my report
[1]. You won't find any proofs in the paper, but they're on my
medium-term agenda. There is also source code for an interpreter/
bytecode-compiler/shell for this intermediate language [2].
[1] http://www.cs.tufts.edu/tr/techreps/TR-2007-2
[2] http://www.eecs.tufts.edu/~rdocki01/masters.html
Cheers,
Kirsten
Rob Dockins
Speak softly and drive a Sherman tank.
Laugh hard; it's a long way to the bank.
-- TMBG
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
