Better error recovery
- From: Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 14 Aug 2006 15:10:14 -0400
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Karsten Nyblad wrote:
"[..]
At last, I would avoid parser generators that use the error recovery of
yacc. That error recovery was fine in the early seventies where parser
generators and parsers had to be squeezed down in 16 bit computers, but
it has been outdated for at least 20 years. Today you should expect an
error recovery to be better at guessing the intentions of the programmer
and/or be easier to work with for the compiler writer. I would suggest
that you go hunting for at parser generator with a better error
recovery. Modern parser generators may also have a more powerful
language for describing the language accepted by the generated parser.
These advantages could end up saving you money even if you have to buy
the parser generator."
It is the responsibility of the programmer to provide the compiler
with the intended input. Hand-coded second-guessing of mistakes can
provide much more helpful error messages, but may be issued in
response to more types of mistakes than those they provide helpful
suggestions for.
.
- References:
- Parser validation/test suites ?
- From: Kenn Heinrich
- Re: Parser validation/test suites ?
- From: Karsten Nyblad
- Parser validation/test suites ?
- Prev by Date: Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap
- Next by Date: Re: Parser validation/test suites ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Better error recovery
- Next by thread: Re: Parser validation/test suites ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
