Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #2938
| Path | csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end |
|---|---|
| From | Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: Improved accuracy in diagnostics. Is it worthwhile? |
| Date | Fri, 18 Mar 2022 16:47:47 -0000 (UTC) |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Lines | 19 |
| Sender | news@iecc.com |
| Approved | comp.compilers@iecc.com |
| Message-ID | <22-03-036@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | <22-03-035@comp.compilers> |
| Injection-Info | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="91710"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords | yacc, errors |
| Posted-Date | 18 Mar 2022 12:50:05 EDT |
| X-submission-address | compilers@iecc.com |
| X-moderator-address | compilers-request@iecc.com |
| X-FAQ-and-archives | http://compilers.iecc.com |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.compilers:2938 |
Show key headers only | 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
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