On Mar 19, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 2013, at 14:21 , jahanian <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 19, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Would it make sense to not just continue but to pretend instead that the >>> '}' is there? I feel like that will give us better recovery. (You'd >>> eliminate those last two errors: "expected '}'" and "missing '@end'".) >> >> I think by 'pretending' you mean insert a '}' before @end and continue. I >> thought about this but I did not want to introduce the bookkeeping >> overhead for the correct case. Do you have a suggestion how to pretend >> without adding this overhead? > > Hm, I see what you mean—right now we unilaterally consume a closing brace > when we exit the loop. The easiest way to solve this is to extract the > parsing loop and the T.consumeClose() into a helper function, with an early > return for the @end case...but that's not exactly pretty. I guess I'll let > you make the call (or stand by the call you already made). Problem is not avoiding calling of T.consumeClose() in the incorrect case. Problem is that '@' and 'end" are two tokens and we have consumed '@' already (this will cause parse error later). I see two solutions: 1. When seeing '@', lookahead for 'end' and exit the loop while skipping T.consumeClose() . I think this is what you are suggesting. But it involves unnecessary overhead for the common case. 2. If it is possible, I can insert a '}' two tokens before current token and reset the lexer to the inserted '}' for the incorrect case, then problem is solved without introducing any undue overhead for the common case. - Fariborz > > Jordan _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
