Derek M Jones <de...@knosof.co.uk> writes: >Syntax error recovery was much better back in the 1960s and 1970 because job >turn around time was so long. > >http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2010/04/19/brief-history-of-syntax-error-recovery/ > >When PCs became available compiler error recovery got seriously worse.
It's really heavily influenced by the parser being used, with a handcoded LL(1) parser you can include all sorts of fancy error processing and recovery, while yacc and friends just aren't amenable to effective error recovery or reporting, and tools built on them have typically perpetuated the intransience of the parser. OTOH if you build a tool from the outset to address this, you get stuff like what clang does: http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/amazing-feats-of-clang-error-recovery.html By extension, gcc has slowly got better error diagnostics as it's had to lift its game to keep up with clang. Peter. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PPIG Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ppig-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send an email to ppig-discuss@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
