Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Backus-Naur Form for CIF

On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

> I support this requirement for testing. I believe that the IETF requires 
> two independent implementations of a proposed protocol to show that it is 
> workable. I have read the BNF by eye but have no comments (other than to 
> agree it is an important document) . In principle it should be tested against:
>          - example files (both conforming and non-conforming)
>          - yacc-like tools.
> I know this is tedious - and furthermore I am not offering to do it :-(  - 
> but it is a necessary part of the process.
> (I hope to write more about CIF tools in general shortly).

I have these for star, a yacc description which is the basis for starbase
and a javacc description which is the basis for dREL, the methods language
we have embedded into the STAR dictionaries.

These are two independent implementations, the first using an LALR grammar
spec and the latter using an LL(k) grammar. I also have (as we all do) a
suite of conforming and non-conforming test decks. 


Dr Nick Spadaccini
Department of Computer Science              voice: +(61 8) 9380 3452
University of Western Australia               fax: +(61 8) 9380 1089
Nedlands, Perth,  WA  6907                 email: nick@cs.uwa.edu.au
AUSTRALIA                        web: http://www.cs.uwa.edu.au/~nick