[reSIProcate] ParseBuffer::assertNotEof() ?

[Daniel Pocock]

Jason Fischl wrote:

> 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.


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.