> Please, do *not* put error correction into ghc! I think error correction
> is one of the Classic Bad Ideas for a compiler. It's much better to
> focus on providing understandable error messages: when the user knows
> what the compiler thinks is wrong, it's usually not so hard to fix the
> error.
>
> One error message at a time is sensible, too. Once I've fixed the first
> error, I don't want to waste time studying further error messages on the
> dubious assumption that they are unconnected to the first one. Let the
> computer do the grind work!
>
> I would hate it if a program that I'm trying to prove theorems about
> behaves strangely, because, in the face of an error, the compiler took
> a wild guess about what was intended and produced a program that I
> never wrote.
I'm not unsympathetic to this sentiment. It would not be so bad, though, if
the compiler/parser could guarantee that reported errors are orthogonal,
i.e, there is no dependency between them. I imagine that this is already a
consideration for error reporting in GHC, though.
--FC
