Open davidcok opened 6 years ago
I would also prefer the second approach. Looking forward to the draft!
Jens
Hi, I suggest a third approach: a separate document for ACSL++ that is not self-contained but defines the extensions and differences with ACSL. This is the path that we are currently following at TrustInSoft and it is quite convenient for the user (this is a small document) and the maintainers (the ACSL++ does not need to be updated at the same pace as the main ACSL document). I can share with you the current state of the document that we use to track our implementation progress. Benjamin
I will shortly being to assemble a draft C++ specification language document. Since C and C++ have much in common, there will obviously be considerable overlap with the ACSL document. Thus it does not make sense to have two completely separate documents where the ommon material needs to be updated and kept consistent in both of them. So we can either
1) Make them one document, icdentifying sections that are C or C++ specific or 2) Have two documents, but with shared tex files as appropriate.
Virgile and I are preferring the second approach. It will require some refactoring of the ACSL sources in order to isolate the shared pieces and therefore some mutual dependency. The C++ sources will be in the same repository as the ACSL sources and the document created with something like make acppsl
Comments are welcome.
@jensgerlach @pbaudin @vprevosto @maroneze for comments