Re: [reSIProcate] ParseBuffer::assertNotEof() ?
On 10/25/06, Daniel Pocock <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Byron Campen wrote:
> That is not valid syntax, no. However, it would make sense to
> interpret this as the case where there is no tag parameter, and if
> this is something that a TU cannot live with, then it can be rejected
> there. Any objections?
>
I'm still seeing this behaviour in the latest code from SVN.
Does anyone object if I patch this to allow the tag= nothing syntax, or
is there another preferred solution?
How/where are you going to address the issue? I don't think that the
parser should be changed to allow tag= syntax but I agree that dum
should reject the request.