|Parser generators which implemented Burke-Fisher error correction email@example.com (Momonjar) (2007-04-18)|
|Re: Parser generators which implemented Burke-Fisher error correction firstname.lastname@example.org (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2007-04-19)|
|Re: Parser generators which implemented Burke-Fisher error correction email@example.com (Stefan Monnier) (2007-04-20)|
|From:||Stefan Monnier <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||20 Apr 2007 10:25:46 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||20 Apr 2007 10:25:46 EDT|
> I was interested on implementing the Burke-Fisher error
> method in Bison. I want to know that is there any parser generators
> implemented this feature? The one I only know is the ML-Yacc,
> mentioned in the book "Modern Compiler Implementation in ML". If
> there weren't much parser generators implemented it, is it means
> that this feature is not useful or some other reasons?
Having used ml-yacc several times, I find the feature extremely
useful: it gives you reasonably good syntax error messages with no
effort whatsoever. I've heard people claim that its error messages
aren't very good, and that's probably true: hand written error
handling might get you further, just like assembly coding can give you
extra performance, but I find ml-yacc's error messages good enough,
and since you get it for free I find it really beneficial.
> [Back when we punched our programs on cards, handed the decks to the
> operator, and got printouts back an hour later, error correction was
> very popular since it offered the chance to find more bugs per run and
> decrease the number of runs until your program worked. Now that we do
> everything interactively, I don't see much point in the compiler
> guessing what you wanted to do rather than just point out where the
> error is and letting you fix it. -John]
I don't think of it as a way to "keep parsing past the first error", but
just a way to get better error messages.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.