Subject: RE: 1.x or 2.x

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 96 23:01:36 GMT

All-

I remember fondly some of these same discussions when we tried to establish the 
desired behaviour for ibischk in light of revision 2.x of the spec.  We finally 
came down to the notion that ibischk is more than merely a parser for ibis 
models.  It is a tool to check for adherence to the spec.  So if we are 
building, or attempting to build, verion 1.x compliant models we definitely 
want the checking tool to test against the syntax and behaviour intended by the 
version 1.x spec.  Period.  And absolutely and fully.  Similarly if we are 
testing a model intended to be version 2.x compliant we certainly want all the 
things both demanded and allowed by the new spec to be demanded or allowed by 
the tool.  Thus the switch and the dual personality of the ibischk tool.  It is 
more than a parser.  Now if you start discussing how a parser to be embedded in 
a simulator should behave, it should be no more demanding than the rest of the 
simulator insists on.  In fact it should be as forgiving as the rest of the 
simulator code will allow.  Thus, for example the Interconnectix version allows 
some thongs beyond the strict spec, as I remember.  ( Bob Ross, please correct 
me quick if I lied here! :-) )  Just to use it as a specific example.

Still if the ibischk tool does not meet the expectations or intentions of the 
spec, it should change.  We intended to free up a lot on the metric suffixes 
allowed, but we still had a defined set.  I suggest that that full set, but no 
other should be allowed by ibischk, and leave the possibility of more freedom 
yet to individual parsers attached to tools.

Just the $0.02 worth of one who was part of that spec.  :-)

Thanks,
Bob Ward