Re: new parser: error recovery needs work

[dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)]

> | I thought about this, and I intentionally went for more technical error
> | messages.  I often find G++'s error messages confusing because of their
> | wafflyness -- I think "what on earth does that mean?"  G++ has a bad
> | tendency to make up terms that aren't in the standard or even in common
> | usage in the C++ community.  By using technical terms, at least people
> | can consult a reference book to figure out what's going on.

I think "common usage" is a better guide than "technical terms", especially
for a language where the great majority of C++ users have no effective access
to the standard. Even with Ada, where typically any serious Ada programmer
*does* have a copy of the standard readily available and consults it 
frequently, the use of technical terms can be confusing. For example if
a message says package, then technically this does not include generic
packages, but relying on this knowledge would be confusing. Similarly,
in common usage everyone uses the term package spec instead of package
declaration.