Hello Waldek, Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it is better to catch such errors on a post-parsing stage. > Why this may matter: syntax errors frequently leave parser in a > confused state, making hard to detect other errors. Also for users > is seem easier to have simple syntax + set of semantic constraints > than to encode constraints in syntax. My personal preference is for strict syntax constraints, with a syntax error being a hard error. Main reasons being that to continue and process syntactically invalid input is for the sole purpose of generating additional error messages. I feel users would not mind having a single accurate error message vs. wading through a pile of possibly nonsensical reports. I find this approach more useful especially when the language has an interpreter (which would be very nice to have for Spad). Semantic errors are just as likely to leave a type-checker or other analysis phase in a confused state. Im not sure how simple syntax vs. strict semantic constraints makes the users life any easier. They still need to play by the rules, grammatical or not. Just my 2 cents. Take care, Steve _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer