1. Minor bug found in 3.1 and previous
- Posted by Al Getz <Xaxo at aol.?om> Jun 30, 2007
- 670 views
--program: constant x=1 x=2 --end program --error message: C:\Euphoria\Projects\Test\test.exw:2 x has not been declared x=2 ^ Press Enter --end message Error message should be "May not change the value of a constant", or something like that. Take care, Al E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria! My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's" From "Black Knight": "I can live with losing the good fight, but i can not live without fighting it". "Well on second thought, maybe not."
2. Re: Minor bug found in 3.1 and previous
- Posted by Bernie Ryan <xotron at bluefrog.co?> Jun 30, 2007
- 581 views
Al Getz wrote: > > --program: > constant x=1 > x=2 > --end program > > --error message: > C:\Euphoria\Projects\Test\test.exw:2 > x has not been declared > x=2 > ^ > > Press Enter > --end message > > > Error message should be "May not change the value of a constant", > or something like that. > > > Al > > E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria! > > > My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's" > Al: You forgot the COMMA after x=1 Bernie My files in archive: WMOTOR, XMOTOR, W32ENGIN, MIXEDLIB, EU_ENGIN, WIN32ERU, WIN32API Can be downloaded here: http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
3. Re: Minor bug found in 3.1 and previous
- Posted by Al Getz <Xaxo at aol.?om> Jun 30, 2007
- 588 views
Bernie Ryan wrote: > > Al Getz wrote: > > > > --program: > > constant x=1 > > x=2 > > --end program > > > > --error message: > > C:\Euphoria\Projects\Test\test.exw:2 > > x has not been declared > > x=2 > > ^ > > > > Press Enter > > --end message > > > > > > Error message should be "May not change the value of a constant", > > or something like that. > > > > > > Al > > > > E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria! > > > > > > My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's" > > > > Al: > > You forgot the COMMA after x=1 > > > Bernie > > My files in archive: > WMOTOR, XMOTOR, W32ENGIN, MIXEDLIB, EU_ENGIN, WIN32ERU, WIN32API > > Can be downloaded here: > <a > href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan</a> Hi Bernie, What comma are you talking about? There is no comma in there. Take care, Al E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria! My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's" From "Black Knight": "I can live with losing the good fight, but i can not live without fighting it". "Well on second thought, maybe not."
4. Re: Minor bug found in 3.1 and previous
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria?com> Jun 30, 2007
- 601 views
Al Getz wrote: > > --program: > constant x=1 > x=2 > --end program > > --error message: > C:\Euphoria\Projects\Test\test.exw:2 > x has not been declared > x=2 > ^ > > Press Enter > --end message > > > Error message should be "May not change the value of a constant", > or something like that. Yes, that would be a better message. You've caught the parser and scanner at an awkward moment. What's happening here is that you're making the scanner look up x in the symbol table, when the parser hasn't quite finished the constant declaration of x. The fact that you enter a new-line character after constant x = 1 is no more significant than typing a blank, and the parser needs to see the next scanner token to be sure that the constant declaration is really finished. You might have had:
constant x = 1 + 1 -- x is 2
for instance. Until the parser digests the next token after " = 1", it can't be sure that the declaration is finished, and can't record that x is a constant with value 1 in the symbol table. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
5. Re: Minor bug found in 3.1 and previous
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at Rapid?uphoria.com> Jun 30, 2007
- 629 views
Robert Craig wrote: > ... Until the parser digests the next token after " = 1", > it can't be sure that the declaration is finished, > and can't record that x is a constant with value 1 > in the symbol table. Actually, now that I've looked at the parser source code, I see that the real issue is that the parser doesn't allow the constant symbol to be visible in the symbol table, until it can be sure that the defining expression has been fully parsed. This ensures that you don't use the constant symbol to define itself. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
6. Re: Minor bug found in 3.1 and previous
- Posted by Al Getz <Xaxo at ?ol.com> Jul 01, 2007
- 708 views
Robert Craig wrote: > > Al Getz wrote: > > > > --program: > > constant x=1 > > x=2 > > --end program > > > > --error message: > > C:\Euphoria\Projects\Test\test.exw:2 > > x has not been declared > > x=2 > > ^ > > > > Press Enter > > --end message > > > > > > Error message should be "May not change the value of a constant", > > or something like that. > > Yes, that would be a better message. > You've caught the parser and scanner at an awkward moment. > What's happening here is that you're making the scanner > look up x in the symbol table, when the parser hasn't quite > finished the constant declaration of x. The fact that > you enter a new-line character after constant x = 1 > is no more significant than typing a blank, and > the parser needs to see the next scanner token to be sure that > the constant declaration is really finished. You might have > had: > }}} <eucode> > constant x = 1 > + 1 -- x is 2 > </eucode> {{{ > for instance. Until the parser digests the next token after " = 1", > it can't be sure that the declaration is finished, > and can't record that x is a constant with value 1 > in the symbol table. > > Regards, > Rob Craig > Rapid Deployment Software > <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a> Hi Rob, Ok, but it looks to me like logically it is not too hard to detect the end of a constant declaration. Whether or not the parser can do this yet or not i dont know, apparently it can not. I think i see what you are talking about however, in that the following program gives the same error: -- constant y=2 constant x=y x=1 -- Apparently though something sees the whitespace and is able to terminate the "x=y" part once the 'x' is encountered, it is just not able to understand the difference between a comma or whitespace or other, non-variable-starter characters (which would tell it to keep parsing the constant declaration) and an actual variable-starter character. In other words, if it encounters a character that is in the set of all characters that can be a variable starter then it is forced to terminate the constant declaration. Isnt the current set A to Z and a to z ? Note there is no possibilty of: constant x=y x --(which would trigger an "x is not declared" error) where the user intended constant x=yx and also constant x=x would probably trigger an "x is not declared" error (referring to the second x). Make sense or did i assume too much? Bottom line is that the main reason i mentioned this is because when you get the error message "x is not declared" it makes you think you can go somewhere near the beginning of the program and type "atom x" and all will be fine Only after typing that will the real problem show itself (x was already declared as a constant) on the next run. Take care, Al E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria! My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's" From "Black Knight": "I can live with losing the good fight, but i can not live without fighting it". "Well on second thought, maybe not."
7. Re: Minor bug found in 3.1 and previous
- Posted by Igor Kachan <kinz at pe?erlink.ru> Jul 07, 2007
- 610 views
- Last edited Jul 08, 2007
Robert Craig wrote: > > Al Getz wrote: > > > > --program: > > constant x=1 > > x=2 > > --end program > > > > --error message: > > C:\Euphoria\Projects\Test\test.exw:2 > > x has not been declared > > x=2 > > ^ > > > > Press Enter > > --end message > > > > > > Error message should be "May not change the value of a constant", > > or something like that. > > Yes, that would be a better message. > You've caught the parser and scanner at an awkward moment. [snip] Rob, why not just to change the error message as: x has not been declared or it is a constant already ??? Regards, Igor Kachan kinz at peterlink.ru
8. Re: Minor bug found in 3.1 and previous
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidE?phoria.com> Jul 08, 2007
- 609 views
Igor Kachan wrote: > Robert Craig wrote: > > > > Al Getz wrote: > > > > > > --program: > > > constant x=1 > > > x=2 > > > --end program > > > > > > --error message: > > > C:\Euphoria\Projects\Test\test.exw:2 > > > x has not been declared > > > x=2 > > > ^ > > > > > > Press Enter > > > --end message > > > > > > > > > Error message should be "May not change the value of a constant", > > > or something like that. > > > > Yes, that would be a better message. > > You've caught the parser and scanner at an awkward moment. > > [snip] > > Rob, why not just to change the error message as: > > x has not been declared or it is a constant already > > ??? That would help in 1% of the cases, while making the other 99% slightly more confusing. I don't think that would be a good idea. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
9. Re: Minor bug found in 3.1 and previous
- Posted by Igor Kachan <kinz at peterlin?.ru> Jul 08, 2007
- 610 views
- Last edited Jul 09, 2007
Robert Craig wrote: > Igor Kachan wrote: > > Robert Craig wrote: > > > Al Getz wrote: > > > > > > > > --program: > > > > constant x=1 > > > > x=2 > > > > --end program > > > > > > > > --error message: > > > > C:\Euphoria\Projects\Test\test.exw:2 > > > > x has not been declared > > > > x=2 > > > > ^ > > > > > > > > Press Enter > > > > --end message > > > > > > > > > > > > Error message should be "May not change the value of a constant", > > > > or something like that. > > > > > > Yes, that would be a better message. > > > You've caught the parser and scanner at an awkward moment. > > > > [snip] > > > > Rob, why not just to change the error message as: > > > > x has not been declared or it is a constant already > > > > ??? > > That would help in 1% of the cases, > while making the other 99% slightly more confusing. > I don't think that would be a good idea. Rob, my percentage is -- 100% of these errors are covered by interpreter, it is better thing to explain the sence of a correct error message than to explain all those guts of parser and scanner to poor user every time in 1% of the cases, I think Just my $0.02. Regards, Igor Kachan kinz at peterlink.ru