In <20050707220948(_dot_)GA26831(_at_)alatheia(_dot_)elm(_dot_)net> Alex van
den Bogaerdt <alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> writes:
What is obvious to you is not obvious to me.
Indeed, and that is part of the problem with writing good
diagnostics. More over, what is an "obvious" way of explaining some
invalid syntax to some is not the same to others. I happen to
understand the techniques Frank is talking about, and I would have
found them fairly obvious, but I recognize that most people aren't
steeped in ABNF, NFA, type-2 languages in the Chomsky hierarchy,
LALR(1), and a bazillion other language parsing concepts, and even
those who are might not find the "left to right parsing" to be the
right thing to do.
I say, once again, I did a "best match".
Yes, but "best match" is really hard to define in all cases. Is the
"best match" the minimal number of characters (bits?) that need to be
changed in order to change the invalid syntax into valid syntax?
Maybe, but that isn't obvious to me.
-wayne