> On 9 Oct 2022, at 18:54, Antoon Pardon <antoon.par...@vub.be> wrote: > > > > Op 9/10/2022 om 19:23 schreef Karsten Hilbert: >> Am Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 06:59:36PM +0200 schrieb Antoon Pardon: >> >>> Op 9/10/2022 om 17:49 schreef Avi Gross: >>>> My guess is that finding 100 errors might turn out to be misleading. If you >>>> fix just the first, many others would go away. >>> At this moment I would prefer a tool that reported 100 errors, which would >>> allow me to easily correct 10 real errors, over the python strategy which >>> quits >>> after having found one syntax error. >> But the point is: you can't (there is no way to) be sure the >> 9+ errors really are errors. >> >> Unless you further constrict what sorts of errors you are >> looking for and what margin of error or leeway for false >> positives you want to allow. > > Look when I was at the university we had to program in Pascal and > the compilor we used continued parsing until the end. Sure there > were times that after a number of reported errors the number of > false positives became so high it was useless trying to find the > remaining true ones, but it still was more efficient to correct the > obvious ones, than to only correct the first one.
If it’s very fast to syntax check then one at a time is fine. Python is very fast to syntax check so I personal do not need the multi error version. My editor has syntax check on a key and it’s instant to drop me a syntax error. Barry > > I don't need to be sure. Even the occasional wrong correction > is probably still more efficient than quiting after the first > syntax error. > > -- > Antoon. > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
