[langsec-discuss] proven-correct parsers

Meredith L. Patterson clonearmy at gmail.com
Thu Jun 2 01:00:03 UTC 2016


The overzealous gmail spam filter strikes again; that's where I found your
original posts, Matthew.

Cheers,
--mlp

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Wilson <diakopter at gmail.com> wrote:

> I hadn't seen this paper/repo referenced on this list or any of the
> links from langsec.org, so I thought it might be helpful to point out.
> I realize the answer to my question is generally agreed upon by the
> list participants...
>
> On second thought, it occurs to me that perhaps you didn't see the
> link I included (since you didn't quote it) to the parsing-parses
> Github repo of JasonGross?
> https://github.com/JasonGross/parsing-parses or the paper
>
> https://people.csail.mit.edu/jgross/personal-website/papers/2015-jgross-thesis.pdf
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Guilherme Salazar <gmesalazar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Matthew Wilson <diakopter at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Isn't the proper solution to faulty parsers to create provably correct
> ones?
> >
> >
> > Is there any context or was it a rhetorical question?
>
>
>
> --
> Sent by an Internet
> _______________________________________________
> langsec-discuss mailing list
> langsec-discuss at mail.langsec.org
> https://mail.langsec.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/langsec-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.langsec.org/pipermail/langsec-discuss/attachments/20160601/dea9a4eb/attachment.html>


More information about the langsec-discuss mailing list