Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Tanton H. Gibbs
dblp:23/3342
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2003
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 1 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Program verification · 67% Software testing · 33% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program verification › invariant verification
invariant checking |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Automated Validation of Class Invariants in C ++ Applications · ASE 2002 |
Program verification › dynamic verification
runtime verification |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Automated Validation of Class Invariants in C ++ Applications · ASE 2002 |
Software testing
test oracle |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Automated Validation of Class Invariants in C ++ Applications · ASE 2002 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
visitor pattern · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | Decorating tokens to facilitate recognition of ambiguous language constructsabstractAbstract Software tools are fundamental to the comprehension, analysis, testing and debugging of application systems. A necessary first step in the development of many tools is the construction of a parser front‐end that can recognize the implementation language of the system under development. In this paper, we describe our use of token decoration to facilitate recognition of ambiguous language constructs. We apply our approach to the C++ language since its grammar is replete with ambiguous derivations such as the declaration/expression and template‐declaration/expression ambiguity. We describe our implementation of a parser front‐end for C++, keystone, and we describe our results in decorating tokens for our test suite including the examples from Clause Three of the C++ standard. We are currently exploiting the keystone front‐end to develop a taxonomy for implementation‐based class testing and to reverse‐engineer Unified Modeling Language (UML) class diagrams. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Brian A. Malloy, Tanton H. Gibbs, James F. Power |
Softw. Pract. Exp. | 2 |
| 2002 | Automated Validation of Class Invariants in C ++ ApplicationsabstractIn this paper, we describe a non-invasive approach for validation of class invariants in C++ applications. Our approach is fully automated so that the user need only supply the class invariants for each class hierarchy to be checked and our validator constructs an InvariantVisitor, a variation of the Visitor Pattern, and an InvariantFacilitator. Instantiations of the InvariantVisitor and InvariantFacilitator classes encapsulate the invariants in C++ statements and facilitate the validation of the invariants. We describe both our approach and our results of validating invariants in keystone, a well tested parser front-end for C++. Tanton H. Gibbs, Brian A. Malloy, James F. Power |
ASE | 1 |