Re: Definition of Semantic: was What Lua can do that other programming languages can't do?

[Steve Litt <slitt@...>]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:45:40 +1100
Ross Bencina <rossb-lists@audiomulch.com> wrote:

> 
> > 2013/3/27 Tim Hill <drtimhill@gmail.com>:
> >> My point was that, at a certain abstract level, semantic bugs are
> >> mostly in the eye of the beholder. Attempts to formalize semantics
> >> almost always end up creating formalisms that shift semantics back
> >> into the realm of syntax; that is a formal logic system that while
> >> self-consistent doesn't really say much about anything other than
> >> that the symbol chain is valid within that system.
> 
> But surely that's all that is meant by "semantics" in the domain of 
> "programming languages". It's the standard split between
> "syntax" (what are the symbols and the valid constructions in the
> source language) and "semantics" (how the symbols are mapped onto
> operations of the machine). That is all.

Danger Will Robinson!

Your preceding paragraph directly contradicts Javier Guerra Giraldez's
3/25/2013 response to my question of whether "semantics of" is a synonym
for "behavior of", in this same thread. One of you must be wrong. Now
personally, I agree with your interpretation, but that's just me, and I
don't use the word anyway.

The constant contradiction and vagueness is why I wish people would
find more specific words than "semantic" to describe (take your pick)
[meaning | behavior | whatever], unless they're mathematically
analyzing the very bowels of a language.

Thanks,

SteveT