On 11Oct2022 08:02, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
There's a huge difference between non-fatal errors and syntactic errors. The OP wants the parser to magically skip over a fundamental syntactic error and still parse everything else correctly. That's never going to work perfectly, and the OP is surprised at this.
The OP is not surprised by this, and explicitly expressed awareness that resuming a parse had potential for "misparsing" further code.
I remain of the opinion that one could resume a parse at the next unindented line and get reasonable results a lot of the time.
In fact, I expect that one could resume tokenising at almost any line which didn't seem to be inside a string and often get reasonable results.
I grew up with C and Pascal compilers which would _happily_ produce many complaints, usually accurate, and all manner of syntactic errors. They didn't stop at the first syntax error.
All you need in principle is a parser which goes "report syntax error here, continue assuming <some state>". For Python that might mean "pretend a missing final colon" or "close open brackets" etc, depending on the context. If you make conservative implied corrections you can get a reasonable continued parse, enough to find further syntax errors.
I remember the Pascal compiler in particular had a really good "you missed a semicolon _back there_" mode which was almost always correct, a nice boon when correcting mistakes.
Cheers, Cameron Simpson <c...@cskk.id.au> -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
