Re: Improved accuracy in diagnostics. Is it worthwhile?

From	Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Re: Improved accuracy in diagnostics. Is it worthwhile?
Date	2022-03-18 16:47 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<22-03-036@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	<22-03-035@comp.compilers>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2022-03-18, Ev. Drikos <drikosev@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is mainly a parsing question but it's also Fortran related as well.
>
> When I make syntax checking with the command 'fcheck' in the code below,
> the error message doesn't contain a '(' in the expected tokens. This
> happens due to default actions, although the parser is basically LALR. A
> pure LALR parser wouldn't make reductions without examininig the lookahead.

I think you mean default reductions?

In the case of Yacc, the action is the body { $$ = $1; }

:)

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Improved accuracy in diagnostics. Is it worthwhile? "Ev. Drikos" <drikosev@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 07:25 +0200
  Re: Improved accuracy in diagnostics. Is it worthwhile? Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2022-03-18 16:47 +0000
  Re: Improved accuracy in diagnostics. Is it worthwhile? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2022-03-18 18:12 +0000
    Re: Improved accuracy in diagnostics. Is it worthwhile? "Ev. Drikos" <drikosev@gmail.com> - 2022-03-19 19:58 +0200

csiph-web