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

From: Stefan Knecht <knecht.stefan_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:47:09 +0700
Message-ID: <CAP50yQ8agRX=6LyxX1qvA2_vF4HitsBWV=jKze390L++N7wNwg_at_mail.gmail.com>



Thanks guys!

And Mark, I'll definitely be putting a case on for that ER.

Just a few days ago I did the same thing with another ER: 5865777 : CONNECT-TIMEOUT FOR UTL_SMTP AND OTHER PL/SQL NETWORK UTILITY PACKAGES which just happens to have been created way back in 2007 as well :)

Stefan

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:57 AM, Mark W. Farnham <mwf_at_rsiz.com> wrote:

> Stefan, please file the business case that allowing unmatched block labels
> are error prone for human readers.
>
>
>
> Then, regardless of whether it is handled as and “enhancement request” or
> as a “deficiency removal” it will have a chance for action.
>
>
>
> I would offer the slight enhancement to the enhancement that this be
> handled as a warning by default, lest we cause apparently correctly (or at
> least unnoticed) running code that has textual deficiencies to continue as
> they are.
>
>
>
> I **suspect** the modern culture of unit testing by getting through the
> compiler has created a sufficient mass of such code to justify being wary
> in unleashing the enhancement.
>
>
>
> Thanks Bryn. Thanks Toon.
>
>
>
> mwf
>
>
>
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_
> freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael D O'Shea/Woodward Informatics Ltd
> *Sent:* Monday, March 19, 2018 4:55 AM
> *To:* knecht.stefan_at_gmail.com
> *Cc:* Toon Koppelaars; oracle-l-freelists
> *Subject:* Aw: PL/SQL Interpreter oddity - bug or "expected"?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Am 19.03.2018 um 07:57 schrieb Stefan Knecht <knecht.stefan_at_gmail.com>:
>
> >
>
> > So to summarize, I still feel that the behavior isn't what
>
> > I'd expect. Regardless of what "loop" is underneath the covers,
>
> > it has a special meaning, and that meaning is entirely obliterated
>
> > by the compiler treating it as a mere label.
>
>
>
> The take home message from this whole thread is not null block usage or
> how contributors used terms such as label, keyword, reserved word, or other
> semantic terms, but that PL/SQL language grammar & syntax allow for the
> confusion demonstrated in the OP’s code. This is a *deficiency* and we
> should not get carried away with semantic terms.
>
>
>
> Here, as also included in this thread https://blogs.oracle.com/
> plsql-and-ebr/reserved-words%2c-keywords%2c-and-the-ends-of-labeled-blocks
> <https://blogs.oracle.com/plsql-and-ebr/reserved-words,-keywords,-and-the-ends-of-labeled-blocks> Bryn
> Llewellyn writes
>
>
>
> > Please check out this *enhancement request*. I filed it on 31-Mar-2008.
>
> >
>
> > ER 6931048 - Implement new warning when block label doesn't match “end
> ... ;”
>
> >
>
>
>
> If one were pedantic, one would argue this is not an „*enhancement
> request*“ (as written) but a „*deficiency removal*“. You see, arguing
> over semantic terms gets us nowhere. The bottom line is that PL/SQL
> language syntax and grammar allows for this coding man-trap and as such it
> is currently broken. Furthermore, according to Bryn’s „enhancement
> request“, it has been broken for at least a decade, so obviously not broken
> enough to warrant being fixed.
>
>
>
> My twopence.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
> http://www.strychnine.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
//
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
Received on Tue Mar 20 2018 - 04:47:09 CET

Original text of this message