Am Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 07:51:12PM +0200 schrieb Antoon Pardon: > >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. > > I don't need to be sure. Even the occasional wrong correction > is probably still more efficient than quiting after the first > syntax error.
A-ha, so you further defined your context. Under which I can agree to the objective :-) Best, Karsten -- GPG 40BE 5B0E C98E 1713 AFA6 5BC0 3BEA AC80 7D4F C89B -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
