On 6/26/2013 11:21 AM, RSmith wrote:
I meant if a real csv interpreter conforming to RFC4180 were to read the garbage I posted, it would come up with the result specified.
How do you know what a standard-conforming interpreter would do when presented with input that's invalid under that standard? The standard only describes the meaning of valid input, naturally. What exactly is your claim based on?
I would imagine that most (well-written, not otherwise buggy) CSV interpreters agree in their interpretation of RFC4180-conforming input; RFC4180 describes a pretty strict subset of what's found in the wild. It's precisely in their handling of non-conforming input that CSV interpreters differ.
Having done this many times I already know the answer to his problem, it's real easy, a simple command-line tool to make his weird format into a SQLite table - would take a few minutes to make and save him a lot of trouble - I even offered help doing it - but he is intent on arguing that SQLite should change and do it "smarter" - (which is his right) - and now I'm trying to show why it isn't smarter in the hope of finding a resolve.
I totally agree. -- Igor Tandetnik _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
