>>27
In a linguistic sense like you mean here no, was a transmutation of the thing into a grand joke playing on how semantics is the topic but it's linguistic semantics and half the joke succeeded in the other direction.
https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-phrase-arguing-semantics-mean
you are confusing implementation with language
What ultimately defines the language but the standard? Anything you can do with the confines of the standard you can do with the language while keeping it that language, if direct implementation details are part of the standard then it might as well be the language else it can be properly separated and it should be made separate but c didn't. Implementations for natural languages doesn't define those languages but for certain artificial languages it's questionable. What are real standards for natural languages? I'm guessing it doesn't include the implementation for writing and speaking even though those could be considered to have standard details.
Embedding Guile in a C program does not extend the semantics of the C language
The way guile embeds doesn't and if you don't consider undefined behavior legitimate nothing can. There's a reason "extend" was in quotations, wanted to also help expand for the other anon which it seams like a success.
There was another joke about the c standard embracing undefined behavior, allowing for any definition of standard c. Bending a stick and breaking it doesn't prove it's flexible. There's tons of problems with depending on undefined behavior. I'm not into considering this "science" but Issac's big flaming metaphysical sword.
Embedding c within c then using it like eval after allowing the execution environment to evaluate c eval objects and those objects evaluate c eval objects changes the organisation of the code and how it's expressed but depends on standard undefined behavior. This is why it can't be recommended since it makes c even more useless than it originally was. If it's allowed by standard here is it part of c's original semantics or is it extending semantics, it isn't defined semantics.
I suggest you meditate for a while on what Abelson meant when he crossed out "computer" from "computer science".
Everyone here did that, else we be only "web programmers" and not on this site.
Yes what you're on about is the linguistics of artificial languages and specifically semantics not whatever these "computers" are.
>>28
It does in classic theory, what about lisp's capabilities?