2 ms·
The reason this is a fault of the DDL and not the parser is that the DDL spec decides that it has label that evaluates a command. The parser then has two option
by JelteF 7y ago
The reason this is a fault of the DDL and not the parser is that the DDL spec decides that it has label that evaluates a command. The parser then has two options, either implement it or not conform to the spec (and essentially implementing a different DDL). For programming languages it makes sense to have an eval label/command. For configuration/serialization DDLs I think it's a terrible choice.
- al_form2000 7y agoAnd terrible it is indeed, but I cannot find it specified - the strings eval, exec, command, statement do not even occur in the official specs (shallow doc perusal, I know)
- SignalsFromBob 7y agoThat's because there's nothing in the spec stating anything about execution. The parent is simply incorrect. That's why they haven't responded.
- SignalsFromBob 7y ago> DDL spec decides that it has label that evaluates a command This is simply wrong. There is nothing in the spec stating that.