[langsec-discuss] proven-correct parsers
gmesalazar at gmail.com
Thu Jun 2 01:30:12 UTC 2016
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:57 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?
I did see it; thanks for sharing : )
The reason I asked was that, the way I see it, LangSec's core idea is
not only to build correct parsers, but to reason if the language the
parser parses is what we really need to deal with -- e.g., do we
really need a CFL in a given context or would a RL suffice?
More information about the langsec-discuss