Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Derek Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Paper: Syntactic Completions with Material Obligations Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 22:36:38 +0100 Organization: Compilers Central Sender: johnl%iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <25-08-020@comp.compilers> References: <25-08-018@comp.compilers> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="16271"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: parse, errors Posted-Date: 28 Aug 2025 17:57:23 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com In-Reply-To: <25-08-018@comp.compilers> Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:3694 John, > This paper proposes a code editor and parser using obligations, a term I > had not seen before and they do not define, but appears to mean It looks like they are making terms up to make the work sound dramatic, e.g., panicking parser. > pseudo-tokens that require other tokens later to make them valid. They seem to > do better at recovering from syntax errors than other schemes do. No mention of trial parsing, which has been around since the 1960s. > https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16848 Nothing to see here. This is just a mathematical orgasm paper.