我更喜欢“陈述”这个词的形式逻辑意义。它改变了计算中一个或多个变量的状态，从而能够对它们的值做出真或假的声明。

我想，当新的术语或词汇被引入，现有的词汇被“重新定义”，或者用户对他们所描述的现有的、已建立的或“适当的”术语一无所知时，在计算世界和科学中总会出现困惑

为了解释表达式和语句在可组合性(可链接性)方面的重要区别，我最喜欢的参考文献是John Backus的图灵奖论文《编程可以从冯·诺伊曼风格中解放出来吗?》

命令式语言(Fortran, C, Java，…)强调用语句来构造程序，并有表达式作为一种事后思考。函数式语言强调表达式。纯函数式语言具有如此强大的表达式，以至于可以完全消除语句。

表达式是返回值的东西，而语句则不是。

例子:

1 + 2 * 4 * foo.bar()     //Expression
foo.voidFunc(1);          //Statement

两者之间的重要之处在于，您可以将表达式链接在一起，而语句则不能被链接。

最准确地说，语句必须有“副作用”(即命令式)，表达式必须有值类型(即不是底部类型)。

语句的类型是单元类型，但由于停止定理，单元是虚构的，所以我们说底层类型。

Void并不是最下面的类型(它不是所有可能类型的子类型)。它存在于没有完整的声音类型系统的语言中。这听起来可能有点势利，但是完整性(如方差注释)对于编写可扩展软件是至关重要的。

让我们看看维基百科对这件事是怎么说的。

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_ (computer_science)

在计算机编程中，语句是命令式编程语言中最小的独立元素，它表示要执行的某些操作。 许多语言(例如C语言)区分语句和定义，语句只包含可执行代码和声明标识符的定义，而表达式只计算值。

这些概念的事实基础是:

表达式:一种语法类别，其实例可以求值。

语句:一种语法类别，其实例可能涉及表达式的求值，并且不能保证求值的结果值(如果有的话)可用。

除了最初几十年的FORTRAN上下文之外，公认答案中表达式和语句的定义显然都是错误的:

Expressions can be unvaluated operands. Values are never produced from them. Subexpressions in non-strict evaluations can be definitely unevaluated. Most C-like languages have the so-called short-circuit evaluation rules to conditionally skip some subexpression evaluations not change the final result in spite of the side effects. C and some C-like languages have the notion of unevaluated operand which may be even normatively defined in the language specification. Such constructs are used to avoid the evaluations definitely, so the remained context information (e.g. types or alignment requirements) can be statically distinguished without changing the behavior after the program translation. For example, an expression used as the operand of the sizeof operator is never evaluated. Statements have nothing to do with line constructs. They can do something more than expressions, depending on the language specifications. Modern Fortran, as the direct descendant of the old FORTRAN, has concepts of executable statements and nonexecutable statements. Similarly, C++ defines declarations as the top-level subcategory of a translation unit. A declaration in C++ is a statement. (This is not true in C.) There are also expression-statements like Fortran's executable statements. To the interest of the comparison with expressions, only the "executable" statements matter. But you can't ignore the fact that statements are already generalized to be constructs forming the translation units in such imperative languages. So, as you can see, the definitions of the category vary a lot. The (probably) only remained common property preserved among these languages is that statements are expected to be interpreted in the lexical order (for most users, left-to-right and top-to-bottom).

(BTW，关于C的材料，我想补充一下[引文]，因为我不记得DMR是否有这样的意见。似乎不是，否则就没有理由在C语言的设计中保留功能重复:特别是逗号操作符和语句。)

(以下基本原理并不是对最初问题的直接回应，但我觉得有必要澄清这里已经回答过的一些问题。)

然而，在通用编程语言中，我们是否需要特定类别的“语句”是值得怀疑的:

Statements are not guaranteed to have more semantic capabilities over expressions in usual designs. Many languages have already successfully abandon the notion of statements to get clean, neat and consistent overall designs. In such languages, expressions can do everything old-style statements can do: just drop the unused results when the expressions are evaluated, either by leaving the results explicitly unspecified (e.g. in RnRS Scheme), or having a special value (as a value of a unit type) not producible from normal expression evaluations. The lexical order rules of evaluation of expressions can be replaced by explicit sequence control operator (e.g. begin in Scheme) or syntactic sugar of monadic structures. The lexical order rules of other kinds of "statements" can be derived as syntactic extensions (using hygienic macros, for example) to get the similar syntactic functionality. (And it can actually do more.) On the contrary, statements cannot have such conventional rules, because they don't compose on evaluation: there is just no such common notion of "substatement evaluation". (Even if any, I doubt there can be something much more than copy and paste from existed rules of evaluation of expressions.) Typically, languages preserving statements will also have expressions to express computations, and there is a top-level subcategory of the statements preserved to expression evaluations for that subcategory. For example, C++ has the so-called expression-statement as the subcategory, and uses the discarded-value expression evaluation rules to specify the general cases of full-expression evaluations in such context. Some languages like C# chooses to refine the contexts to simplify the use cases, but it bloats the specification more. For users of programming languages, the significance of statements may confuse them further. The separation of rules of expressions and statements in the languages requires more effort to learn a language. The naive lexical order interpretation hides the more important notion: expression evaluation. (This is probably most problematic over all.) Even the evaluations of full expressions in statements are constraint with the lexical order, subexpressions are not (necessarily). Users should ultimately learn this besides any rules coupled to the statements. (Consider how to make a newbie get the point that ++i + ++i is meaningless in C.) Some languages like Java and C# further constraints the order of evaluations of subexpressions to be permissive of ignorance of evaluation rules. It can be even more problematic. This seems overspecified to users who have already learned the idea of expression evaluation. It also encourages the user community to follow the blurred mental model of the language design. It bloats the language specification even more. It is harmful to optimization by missing the expressiveness of nondeterminism on evaluations, before more complicated primitives are introduced. A few languages like C++ (particularly, C++17) specify more subtle contexts of evaluation rules, as a compromise of the problems above. It bloats the language specification a lot. This goes totally against to simplicity to average users...

为什么是语句?不管怎样，历史已经一团糟了。似乎大多数语言设计者都没有仔细选择。

更糟糕的是，它甚至让一些类型系统爱好者(他们对PL历史不够熟悉)产生了一些误解，认为类型系统必须与操作语义上更基本的规则设计有重要关系。

严肃地说，基于类型的推理在许多情况下并不是那么糟糕，但在这个特殊情况下尤其没有建设性。即使是专家也会把事情搞砸。

For example, someone emphasizes the well-typing nature as the central argument against the traditional treatment of undelimited continuations. Although the conclusion is somewhat reasonable and the insights about composed functions are OK (but still far too naive to the essense), this argument is not sound because it totally ignores the "side channel" approach in practice like _Noreturn any_of_returnable_types (in C11) to encode Falsum. And strictly speaking, an abstract machine with unpredictable state is not identical to "a crashed computer".

语句->按顺序执行的指令 表达式->返回值的求值

语句基本上就像算法中的步骤或指令，语句执行的结果是指令指针的实现(所谓的汇编程序)。

表达式乍一看并不意味着和执行顺序，它们的目的是求值并返回值。在命令式编程语言中，表达式的求值是有顺序的，但这只是命令式模型的原因，而不是它们的本质。

语句示例:

for
goto
return
if

(所有这些都意味着执行的行(语句)提前到另一行)

表达式示例:

2+2

(这并不是指执行，而是指评估)