-
The syntax is OK in the sense of, it is an operand, an operator, an operand, so syntactically it's OK.
这里的语法应该是好的，有个运算对象，一个运算符，另外一个运算对象，因此语法上是没错的。
-
And in fact, as a sidebar, that is not syntactically correct, there's a simple button that you push that will check your syntax.
实际上，有个小道消息，你放入了，一个语义,结构。
-
It is in fact syntactically valid.
这只是语法上说得通。
-
OK. What happens if you actually have something that's both syntactically correct, and appears to have correct static semantics, and you run it?
好，当你的代码语法,没错误，并且也有正确的静态语义，你去运行它的时候会发生什么呢？
-
If you've turned in a program that's not syntactically correct, the TAs give you a zero.
不正确的,问题组，助教会给你们一个零分。
-
It's syntactically correct. Right?
在语义构造上是对的，对么？
-
It's not since syntactically correct, right?
因此这并不是语法正确的对不对？
-
What's the point? Again, you can have things that are syntactically legal but not semantically meaningful, and static semantics is going to be a way of helping us decide what expressions, what pieces of code, actually have real meaning to it. All right?
重点是什么？重申，你可以有东西在语义结构的逻辑上有意义,但是在语义上无意义，而static语义,将是一个帮助我们,决定哪些表达，哪部分的代码实际上，有意义的途径，好么？
应用推荐