Ah, so that is what happened. The first time I checked I was using extended syntax, the second time I was not.
I agree they should be optional. But then nobody listens to me... It's the same reason why I stopped talking to myself, I found I just wasn't listening. :-D ----- Original Message ----- > From: Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:36 AM > Subject: Re: ARQ makes semi colons optional in SPARUL > > On 20/06/12 17:13, Tim Harsch wrote: >> Scratch that. My mistake. ARQ requires the semi... >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Tim Harsch<[email protected]> >>> To: JENA-USERS<[email protected]> >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:03 AM >>> Subject: ARQ makes semi colons optional in SPARUL >>> >>> I noticed that in ARQ I could choose not to provide a semi-colon > between SPARUL >>> commands and it would be accepted. I just wanted to point it out in > case the >>> (a) the spec needs updating or (b) ARQ needs to be more pedantic. If > it is an >>> intentional divergence from the spec then no matter... but I'm > curious to >>> know what the intention was here. >>> >>> >>> Here is the grammar production from the spec: >>> [30] Update ::= Prologue ( Update1 ( ';' Update )? )? >>> > > Personally, I think they should be optional but that's consensus > standards for you. > > At least trailing semi-colon is legal > > INSERT DATA {} ; > > It would better is repeated ; were legal. > > INSERT DATA {} ;; > > Extended syntax accepts both - none and multiple. > > Andy >
