From: <se...@in...> - 2004-09-01 21:20:51
|
On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 20:13, Stefan Seefeld wrote: > > One step that I have try to do is documenting the grammar. > > My goal was to derive tests that verify that this grammar correspond > > to what the program is doing. And also validate that changed codes > > do not produce unforeseen effects. > > right, that's what regression tests are all about, aren't they ? > > > My suggestion will be to used grammar with the PCCTS style. > > What I try to get from the PCCTS style grammar is, > > the semantic|syntactic predicates. > > [...] > > Can you qualify relevance of this grammar > > (important, urgent, not useful, later) > > yes, any test with a somewhat good coverage of potential input will help > us. If you can come up with either some test applets or simply a set of > input files that feature all the important language constructs Those language constructs are the one of OpenC++, right. Do you have an idea/suggestion of the structure of the test directory. For example, here following ISO/IEC 14882 test suite +- expression +- statements +- declarations +- declarators +- classes +- derived classes +- member access control +- special member control +- overloading +- templates | +- template parameter | +- template arguments +- exception handling > we should test the parser against, I'll help us a lot. |