Semantics (computer science)

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In

programming language syntax. It is closely related to, and often crosses over with, the semantics of mathematical proofs
.

Semantics describes the processes a computer follows when

platform, thereby creating a model of computation
.

History

In 1967, Robert W. Floyd published the paper Assigning meanings to programs; his chief aim was "a rigorous standard for proofs about computer programs, including proofs of correctness, equivalence, and termination".[2][3] Floyd further wrote:[2]

A semantic definition of a programming language, in our approach, is founded on a syntactic definition. It must specify which of the phrases in a syntactically correct program represent commands, and what conditions must be imposed on an interpretation in the neighborhood of each command.

In 1969, Tony Hoare published a paper on Hoare logic seeded by Floyd's ideas, now sometimes collectively called axiomatic semantics.[4][5]

In the 1970s, the terms operational semantics and denotational semantics emerged.[5]

Overview

The field of formal semantics encompasses all of the following:

  • The definition of semantic models
  • The relations between different semantic models
  • The relations between different approaches to meaning
  • The relation between computation and the underlying mathematical structures from fields such as logic, set theory, model theory, category theory, etc.

It has close links with other areas of

program verification and model checking
.

Approaches

There are many approaches to formal semantics; these belong to three major classes:

  • functional languages often translate the language into domain theory. Denotational semantic descriptions can also serve as compositional translations from a programming language into the denotational metalanguage and used as a basis for designing compilers
    .
  • Operational semantics,[7] whereby the execution of the language is described directly (rather than by translation). Operational semantics loosely corresponds to interpretation, although again the "implementation language" of the interpreter is generally a mathematical formalism. Operational semantics may define an abstract machine (such as the SECD machine), and give meaning to phrases by describing the transitions they induce on states of the machine. Alternatively, as with the pure lambda calculus, operational semantics can be defined via syntactic transformations on phrases of the language itself;
  • Axiomatic semantics,[8] whereby one gives meaning to phrases by describing the axioms that apply to them. Axiomatic semantics makes no distinction between a phrase's meaning and the logical formulas that describe it; its meaning is exactly what can be proven about it in some logic. The canonical example of axiomatic semantics is Hoare logic.

Apart from the choice between denotational, operational, or axiomatic approaches, most variations in formal semantic systems arise from the choice of supporting mathematical formalism.[citation needed]

Variations

Some variations of formal semantics include the following:

Describing relationships

For a variety of reasons, one might wish to describe the relationships between different formal semantics. For example:

  • To prove that a particular operational semantics for a language satisfies the logical formulas of an axiomatic semantics for that language. Such a proof demonstrates that it is "sound" to reason about a particular (operational) interpretation strategy using a particular (axiomatic) proof system.
  • To prove that operational semantics over a high-level machine is related by a simulation with the semantics over a low-level machine, whereby the low-level abstract machine contains more primitive operations than the high-level abstract machine definition of a given language. Such a proof demonstrates that the low-level machine "faithfully implements" the high-level machine.

It is also possible to relate multiple semantics through abstractions via the theory of abstract interpretation.[citation needed]

See also

References

  1. .
  2. ^ .
  3. ^ Knuth, Donald E. "Memorial Resolution: Robert W. Floyd (1936–2001)" (PDF). Stanford University Faculty Memorials. Stanford Historical Society.
  4. S2CID 207726175
    .
  5. ^ .
  6. .
  7. ^ Plotkin, Gordon D. (1981). A structural approach to operational semantics (Report). Technical Report DAIMI FN-19. Computer Science Department, Aarhus University.
  8. ^
    S2CID 11060837
    .
  9. ^ Mosses, Peter D. (1996). Theory and practice of action semantics (Report). BRICS Report RS9653. Aarhus University.
  10. .
  11. .
  12. .
  13. .
  14. .
  15. .

Further reading

Textbooks

External links