From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <joelr1@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL 
	autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0C6BC0A
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:29:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.184])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l1RFTTIJ020470
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:29:29 +0100
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id m19so198700nfc
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:29:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:content-type:to:from:subject:date:x-mailer;
        b=ICYckGnyffsEb52Q/WfMQp438kEtddSB5ybQrepcz0fkzJ4G8zjUS2VBCnah/sjkiiZjAW63YNPM0lTpzKlxo6tPEoS9hLtoMjJNvLDJC1TQP9yiwAKpIn3K4q4/dilnTP5/O8DDT23oXJ8PVzSgjQPEM1potRQODiR9OL88+o8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:content-type:to:from:subject:date:x-mailer;
        b=X3HpqiEJW9p2rDG0NuAgNj4QU4YDl7MMH1hvuq0XSSOxYH4GpKYmU3w1DxnHADVD2c7n1zNYe7ENUS+nS0KnZyosbKgaRcyENRMGXBmxFZbMJUuvaxXEghGD8MN9keghizgchXZA19gl1bnP3FQgjeUafvj7zbUp5VDFs+GRFhU=
Received: by 10.49.93.4 with SMTP id v4mr1292675nfl.1172590168284;
        Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:29:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?192.168.1.33? ( [83.53.109.173])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i1sm2223184nfe.2007.02.27.07.29.26;
        Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:29:27 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <7175FEA6-5CA0-4379-9BBC-CF43504CE733@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
To: caml-list@inria.fr
From: Joel Reymont <joelr1@gmail.com>
Subject: Testing lexers and parsers
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:29:24 +0000
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 45E44E59.000 on concorde : j-chkmail score : XXX : 5/20 1 0.000 -> 3
X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45E44E59.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; lexers:01 parsers:01 chunks:01 structurally:01 parsing:01 ocaml:01 lexers:01 parsers:01 functions:01 modules:02 ast:02 ast:02 match:02 dependent:04 comparison:04 

Folks,

I'm trying to incrementally develop a translator using a test-driven  
approach. I figure I can write a bunch of tests for small chunks of  
functionality to structurally test expected AST against produced.

Once I get to testing the parsing of whole files I think I can print  
the AST I produce into a file and test this against a target file  
with the correct printed AST. I can probably run 'cmp' to make sure  
my files match. This would not be a structural comparison, though,  
and would be highly dependent on white space which does not strike me  
as ideal.

Is there a better way to accomplish this while still using structural  
comparison of ASTs?

Should I try to read my target AST into OCaml, for example? Should I  
create a bunch of "target AST" modules with functions that return my  
target AST?

How does everyone else approach testing of lexers and parsers?

	Thanks, Joel

--
http://wagerlabs.com/