Re: [reSIProcate] ParseBuffer::assertNotEof() ?
Jason Fischl wrote:
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.
Ok, I'm quite happy to have it reject it - and hopefully log something
too.
Should assertNotEof() be modified to throw an exception instead of just
calling assert(0)?
Which exception should be thrown, or should I just create one? Is there
already a try{} catch{} block to handle this, or does this need to be
done too?
Unfortunately I've already deleted my core dumps from today - next time
this happens I'll post a backtrace.