Re: Error conditions

* Robert Barta
>
> A bit, yes. At least we would have a list (maybe 10?, just guessing)
> errors named.

We could, but IMHO it's more important to finish TMQL than to include =20=

this list. Anything we add to the language extends the time it takes =20
to finish.

* Lars Marius Garshol
>
>  - causes problems for implementors, because error situations tend to
>    be highly dependent on implementation strategy, and

* Robert Barta
>
> OK, that should actually not happen. If the query is valid, then a
> processor MUST perform, regardless how it is implemented.

Yes, and if it is an error, the processor MUST NOT perform. So we =20
agree on that. What I meant is that it's more work for an =20
implementation to distinguish error situation A from error situation =20
B than it is to simply say "this query is wrong". Of course, better =20
error reports make for a better query processor, but that's a choice =20
for the developer to make. Some XML parsers (=C6lfred, XP) simplify =20
things by simply reporting everything as a "syntax error".

My experience is also that if you choose a different implementation =20
strategy from others you may find distinguishing between errors A and =20=

B quite a bit harder.

--Lars M.