Bug 78314 - In normal Java Class: JavaIdentifierNoAround expected after this token
Summary: In normal Java Class: JavaIdentifierNoAround expected after this token
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: AspectJ
Classification: Tools
Component: Compiler (show other bugs)
Version: 1.2.1 M1   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 minor (vote)
Target Milestone: 1.5.0 M3   Edit
Assignee: Adrian Colyer CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-11-10 12:10 EST by Eric Bodden CLA
Modified: 2005-08-20 08:12 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments
Project giving the appropriate erroron compilation (11.68 KB, application/octet-stream)
2004-11-10 12:11 EST, Eric Bodden CLA 		no flags Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Eric Bodden CLA 2004-11-10 12:10:35 EST 
Hi. In the enclosed project I am getting the following compilation error which 
occurs in a normal Java compilation unit (no aspect):

Severity	Description	Resource	In Folder	Location	Creation Time
2	Syntax error on token "foo", JavaIdentifierNoAround expected after this 
token	Main.java	AspectJTest-RV/src/a	line 7	November 10, 2004 5:51:13 PM
Comment 1 Eric Bodden CLA 2004-11-10 12:11:28 EST 
Created attachment 15780 [details]
Project giving the appropriate erroron compilation
Comment 2 Eric Bodden CLA 2004-11-10 12:15:58 EST 
Addition just to make things clear:
Of course the code in Class a.Main cannot compile correctly since I *do* have a 
syntax error (code is not inside a method declaration), but the error message is 
not really appropriate here.
Comment 3 Adrian Colyer CLA 2005-03-23 08:55:40 EST 
for investigation in aj5m3 whilst we have the parser open...
Comment 4 Adrian Colyer CLA 2005-08-20 08:12:41 EDT 
Suprisingly hard to get the recovery rules to do the right thing for us. It now
says:

"Syntax error on tokens, valid member declaration expected instead" 

at the offending line.

It's a lot more helpful than the previous message, and would involve a lot of
work to substantially improve the message any further than this so I'm going to
close this out there.