Talk:Compiler/lexical analyzer: Difference between revisions
m
→Error Test Cases
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 138:
--[[User:Ed Davis|Ed Davis]] ([[User talk:Ed Davis|talk]]) 17:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edit, [[User:Ed Davis|Ed Davis]], if we require producing exact output we should reconsider converting escape sequences in string literals. It doesn't make sense to convert them if they must be converted back for the parser to consume. Also, just a thought, your edit might be better placed in the Output Format section, since that is the specification it refers to.
--[[User:The-lambda-way|the-lambda-way]] ([[User talk:The-lambda-way|talk]]) 02:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I've updated the "Output section", and removed the same from the "Additional examples" section. Let me know what you think.
--[[User:Ed Davis|Ed Davis]] ([[User talk:Ed Davis|talk]])[[User:Ed Davis|Ed Davis]] ([[User talk:Ed Davis|talk]]) 19:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
:It should also permit reusable components, such that vm hello.c is perfectly valid. In particular, however, entries must not replicate large sections of code from earlier stages. Of course you must grab each stage individually, but that is just as true for pipe-based solutions. I have just now also added the previously-mentioned-but-not-actually-on-rc extra.e code to the Phix entry, so you can use pipes (and cross-test) if you really want to. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 13:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
==Token names==
Line 471 ⟶ 480:
I vetted this on 2 programming forums/mailing lists, and 2 compiler specific forums. Got feedback, and got two additional solutions! I believe it is ready to go!
--[[User:Ed Davis|Ed Davis]] ([[User talk:Ed Davis|talk]]) 10:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
==Error Test Cases==
I think the set of programs used to test qualifying codes should also include the set of failures such as: end of line in a string, end of file in a string, end of file in a comment, a quoted character with two or more characters specified, a empty quoted character, a number containing a non digit, a number over the maximum possible, etcetera. Both the C and Java versions have code for testing over the maximum number and neither worked correctly for me. If the maximum integer is turned into a string and the input integer's string is longer or equal and the string is greater than the maximum, it is not valid.
--[[User:Jwells1213|Jwells1213]] ([[User talk:Jwells1213|talk]]) 18:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
: This seems valid.
: Perhaps you could propose the examples you used (add them to the task)? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 18:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
: re: C version ''testing over the maximum number'' - I could not reproduce this. Can you tell me how you compiled the C version (OS, compiler, options, compiler version, 32 or 64 bit) and what numbers you tried? In my tests, it failed as I expected it to. --[[User:Ed Davis|Ed Davis]] ([[User talk:Ed Davis|talk]]) 10:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
: I agree, this seems like a good idea. Perhaps under '''Additional examples'''
: You could add a link to a page on negative examples, or examples that should fail. --[[User:Ed Davis|Ed Davis]] ([[User talk:Ed Davis|talk]]) 10:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
==Output Clarification==
The example outputs use \n to display the new line within strings. However, some scanners place the actual character into the output. It should all be done one way so lexical output from C for example would be valid input into all other languages syntax program.
[[User:Jwells1213|Jwells1213]] ([[User talk:Jwells1213|talk]]) 18:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
: This sounds like a nice idea, but there's other aspects of the task which are not sufficiently standardized for that to work (like the pipe mechanism). Conceptually. Perhaps a more important goal would be to have the implementations be readable enough that making these adjustments would be straightforward to implement. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 19:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
| |||