Re: Are Google summer of code 2006 ideas still available?

[Joel E. Denny]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Hans Aberg wrote:

> On 29 Apr 2007, at 08:08, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> 
> > > This will also be required if one wants each
> > > state to tell the correct set of possible completion tokens, as in some
> > > interactive parsers. The latter was discussed on some Bison list (perhaps
> > > for
> > > GNU readline).
> > 
> > Are you (or anyone) aware of any good literature that addresses this issue
> > of false completion tokens using LALR or compact LR tables?
> 
> It is mentioned in the book by Aho, Sethi & Ullman, "Compilers..." ("the
> dragon book") that a difference between LALR(1) and LR(1) is that, when an
> error token appears in the input, the latter reports it immediately, whereas
> the former may perform some additional reductions before it is discovered that
> the token is erroneous.

Thanks for the response.  Sorry, my question wasn't clear enough.  I 
thought you originally cited two different problems from merging 
lookaheads.  First, error handling.  Second, token completions in 
interactive parsers.  I'm interested in the latter though not specifically 
for interactive parsers.  I'm especially interested in attempts at 
solutions, but any literature that cites it at all would be interesting.