Program logic bugs vs input/environmental errors

[eles via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 04:26:45 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 04:10:49 +0000
> eles via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Where's the contradiction?  The compilers state hasn't been 
>> >> corrupted just because it encounters errors in the text 
>> >> file.
>> > but compiler is in unknown state.
>> It's not. It just detected that another system would enter in 
>> an unknown state if built. The compiler is like the engineer 
>> that examines the design of a project and discovers an error 
>> on it, so it refuses to build the product. Is the engineer in 
>> an unknown state?
> sorry. i meant that compiler WILL be in unknown state if it will
> continute to processing invalid source. that's why it should 
> stop right
> after the first error.


No. It might produce an invalid product. Just like a real 
engineer could produce a flawed product on the basis of wrong 
designs.

Yes, you might reach a state where you are no longer be able to 
continue because physically impossible. "Build a round square". 
Both the engineer and the compiler will bark when they see this.

>> Guessing might not be good, but it is nice effort to do. Do 
>> you really miss the super-cryptic C (let's not even talk about 
>> C++) error messages that you sometimes receive?
> yes. DMD attempts to 'guess' what identifier i mistyped drives 
> me
> crazy. just shut up and stop after "unknown identifier", you 
> robot,
> don't try to show me your artificial idiocity!

Could we add a flag to the compiler for that?

-cassandramode=[yes/no/whatever]

Joke :)

Anyway, the Cassandra name for the compiler is just perfect: it 
might be right, but you won't believe!