Re: Minor documentation and message issues

[Akim Demaille]

Hi Jacob and Frank,

> Le 25 juil. 2022 à 17:15, Jacob L. Mandelson <jlm-bbison@jlm.ofb.net> a écrit 
> :
> 
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 03:44:50PM +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
>> [...]
>> Another thing, when running with "-Wcounterexamples", I sometimes
>> get messages like this:
>> 
>>  Productions leading up to the conflict state found.  Still finding a 
>> possible unifying counterexample...time limit exceeded: 6,000000
>> 
>> Maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker, but I've always
>> found the usage of "find" in the meaning of "search" confusing, but
>> especially here, as it ultimately does not find anything.
> 
> 
> Yes, "find" does denote reaching whatever the search sought, but the
> imperfect sense in general denotes non-completion, hence does not
> denote success.  Eg, we say that the accident occurred while Alice was
> crossing the street and Bob was driving to the store, even though neither
> action completed.  That said, using a term that specifically denotes
> an in-progress search probably would be clearer.  The verb for that is
> "seek", but I get the feeling that "seeking" is decreasing in modern
> usage as redundant with "searching".

I'll install this.  Thanks!

commit 290d3d09d440a7fc699e9553b0357ec900726809
Author: Akim Demaille <akim.demaille@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat Sep 10 14:53:39 2022 +0200

    cex: clarify message
    
    Reported by Frank Heckenbach.
    https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-bison/2022-07/msg00007.html
    
    src/counterexample.c (unifying_example): Prefer "searching for" to
    "finding", which is somewhat confusing.

diff --git a/src/counterexample.c b/src/counterexample.c
index 6ce72c9a..71436fd6 100644
--- a/src/counterexample.c
+++ b/src/counterexample.c
@@ -1165,7 +1165,7 @@ unifying_example (state_item_number itm1,
                   && stage3result)
                 {
                   fputs ("Productions leading up to the conflict state found.  
"
-                         "Still finding a possible unifying counterexample...",
+                         "Still searching for a possible unifying 
counterexample...",
                          stderr);
                   assurance_printed = true;
                 }