[reSIProcate] ParseBuffer::assertNotEof() ?

[Jason Fischl]

On 10/25/06, Daniel Pocock <daniel at readytechnology.co.uk> 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.