[cddlm] CDL specification

[Steve Loughran]

Paul Anderson wrote:
>>Hi Paul,
>>
>>I really appreciate your efforts in maintaining this discussion, it
>>brings a lot of value to the whole process! We have discussed your
>>comments in the regular meeting this morning. You may hear from others,
>>but here is my perspective. .........
> 
> 
> Many thanks for the response Dejan. This is pretty much what I had
> expected - I do understand the pragmatic reasons behind these
> decisions, but perhaps I can just summarise my concerns ..
> 
> 1) If people are expected to make independent implementations of a
>    langauge, they are much more likely to work correctly if the
>    the language is defined by a written semantics, rather then by
>    a reference implementation where people have to guess the
>    significant parts of the semantics by reading someone else's
>    code (for example, "does the order of these elements matter"?)

I also plan to have all the tests for my impl up on sourceforge for 
anyone to run their system against. That is, as well as a specification 
of behaviour, we will have tests.

-test