Re: Re: PL/SQL Interpreter oddity - bug or "expected"?

I don't think it's all that relevant whether it's a reserved word or not. It's a part of the PL/SQL language (and a key part thereof).

The main problem I have with it is that code can compile if you're missing an opening loop statement. That can result in unexpected behavior when that code is then executed.

IMHO that should not be possible.

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 9:39 PM, <rogel_at_web.de> wrote:

> Hi Stefan,
>
> well, at least *IF* is in *V$RESERVED_WORDS* ( in contrast to *LOOP*)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *sokrates_at_12.1 > call print_table(q'| 2 select * from v$reserved_words
> where upper(keyword) in ('LOOP', 'IF') 3 |') 4 /
> KEYWORD : IF LENGTH : 2
> RESERVED : N RES_TYPE : N
> RES_ATTR : N RES_SEMI : N
> DUPLICATE : N CON_ID : 0
> ----------------- 1 Zeile selektiert.*
>
>
> Matthias
>
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 17. März 2018 um 11:29 Uhr
> *Von:* "Stefan Knecht" <knecht.stefan_at_gmail.com>
> *An:* "Matthew Parker" <dimensional.dba_at_comcast.net>
> *Cc:* oracle-l-freelists <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: PL/SQL Interpreter oddity - bug or "expected"?
> Yeah I don't think it's about reserved words per se - "IF" isn't a
> reserved word either, but is correctly handled (correct IMHO).
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Matthew Parker <
> dimensional.dba_at_comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> From a Oracle SQL Reserved Word prospective you might think so but when
>> you go to the documentation on Reserved Words, “loop” is not listed.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://docs.oracle.com/database/121/SQLRF/ap_keywd001.htm#SQLRF55621
>>
>>
>>
>> Also in testing words it appears to error on the listed Reserved Words,
>> but some other words that are also fundamental to SQL such as “merge” do
>> not error either and are not in the key word list.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Matthew Parker*
>>
>> *Chief Technologist*
>>
>> *Dimensional DBA*
>>
>> *Oracle Gold Partner*
>>
>> *425-891-7934 (cell)*
>>
>> *D&B *047931344
>>
>> *CAGE *7J5S7
>>
>> *Dimensional.dba_at_comcast.net <Dimensional.dba_at_comcast.net>*
>>
>> *View Matthew Parker's profile on LinkedIn*
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/matthew-parker/6/51b/944/>
>>
>> www.dimensionaldba.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org <oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org> *On
>> Behalf Of *Stefan Knecht
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2018 10:14 PM
>> *To:* oracle-l-freelists <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>
>> *Subject:* PL/SQL Interpreter oddity - bug or "expected"?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ran into this recently, and personally I feel that this should not
>> compile. What do you guys think?
>>
>>
>>
>> Simple case in point:
>>
>>
>>
>> create or replace package foo as
>>
>> procedure bar;
>>
>> end;
>>
>> /
>>
>>
>>
>> Package created.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> create or replace package body foo as
>>
>> procedure bar
>>
>> is
>>
>> begin
>>
>> begin
>>
>> null;
>>
>> end loop;
>>
>> end;
>>
>> end;
>>
>> /
>>
>>
>>
>> Package body created.
>>
>>
>>
>> show errors
>>
>>
>>
>> No errors.
>>
>>
>>
>> SQL> exec foo.bar
>>
>>
>>
>> PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What is happening is that Oracle interprets the "end loop" as being "end
>> anonymous_block_name". And in my opinion, with a keyword like "loop" that
>> should not be happening. In essence, the above is interpreted as:
>>
>>
>>
>> create or replace package body foo as
>>
>> procedure bar
>>
>> is
>>
>> begin
>>
>> begin
>>
>> null;
>>
>> end anon_block_name;
>>
>> end;
>>
>> end;
>>
>> /
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If we switch the "end loop" to an "end if" (which is a similar flow
>> control keyword) it reacts (in my opinion) correctly:
>>
>>
>>
>> create or replace package body foo as
>>
>> procedure bar
>>
>> is
>>
>> begin
>>
>> begin
>>
>> null;
>>
>> end if;
>>
>> end;
>>
>> end;
>>
>> /
>>
>>
>>
>> Warning: Package Body created with compilation errors.
>>
>>
>>
>> SQL> show errors
>>
>> Errors for PACKAGE BODY FOO:
>>
>>
>>
>> LINE/COL ERROR
>>
>> -------- ------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>>
>> 7/7 PLS-00103: Encountered the symbol "IF" when expecting one of the
>>
>> following:
>>
>> ; <an identifier> <a double-quoted delimited-identifier>
>>
>> The symbol "IF" was ignored.
>>
>>
>>
>> SQL>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Would you agree that that should not compile in the first place?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> //
>>
>> zztat - The Next-Gen Oracle Performance Monitoring and Reaction Framework!
>>
>> Visit us at zztat.net | Support our Indiegogo campaign at igg.me/at/zztat
>> | _at_zztat_oracle
>>
>
>
> --
> //
> zztat - The Next-Gen Oracle Performance Monitoring and Reaction Framework!
> Visit us at zztat.net | Support our Indiegogo campaign at igg.me/at/zztat
> | _at_zztat_oracle
> -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

-- 
//
zztat - The Next-Gen Oracle Performance Monitoring and Reaction Framework!
Visit us at zztat.net | Support our Indiegogo campaign at igg.me/at/zztat |
_at_zztat_oracle

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l