Re: Has anyone had a chance to review the revised algorithm yet?

On Apr 12, 2014, at 6:27 AM, Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com> wrote:
> We need to publish a new Last Call draft once we're satisfied that we have things right.  The sooner we do that, the better, but it's most important to get things right.  

I have not yet tried to re-implement the revised algorithm in my interpreter, but will attempt to do so this weekend.

I would like to reiterate what my coworker Chris Nuernberger suggested in February 2013: I think that it would have saved us a lot of trouble if there were a reference implementation in the spec.

Right now we have an official set of unit tests and an official algorithm for interpretation. We do not know for sure if these match up, because there is no way to run the algorithm against them. We have to instead port the pseudo-code algorithm to real languages, and hope that we did not make a mistake and interpret the pseudo-code in a manner other than intended. Only then can we see if this matches the unit tests. And if it doesn’t, which then is right? Is the implementation an invalid representation of the algorithm? Does the algorithm need to be changed to match the unit tests? Is there a bug in the unit tests?

If, instead, there was an official reference implementation, you could independently ensure that the algorithm and unit tests agreed. At that point, you have a definitive “right” answer, guaranteed.

Received on Saturday, 12 April 2014 20:00:02 UTC