Talk:Operational semantics

Could someone provide an example of how operational semantics look like? From the articles it's difficult to tell apart what is the basic difference between operational, denotational and axiomatic semantics. The only intuitive explanation is provided by the Formal semantics of programming languages where it states that denotational is more like compiling the language into a math version, and operational is more like interpreting it.Diego (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was thinking this, too. I've had a go at an illustration of structural operational semantics. It's only an extract — I think a full example would take up to much space. Sam (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very much what I was asking for. Not the theory for a whole program or language, just some snippets to understand how an OS 'feels', i.e. what form have the elements that compose one.Diego (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT called structured operational semantics. Other semantic definitions are also structured (or better be). The point about SOS is that it is guided by the structure of the language in question, which is why it's called structural. So can we remove this "also called structured operational semantics". Gordon Plotkin noted this point oftentimes in his lectures, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.165.102 (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 16:07, 6 February 2009 EatMyShortz version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)