From: "Doug Chamberlin" <DChamberlin@...>

>
> I think it was done this way because the SQL parser/lexer/interpreter
> really sucks. Always has. it can handle the proper syntax OK but handles
> variations in really awful ways. Sometimes ignores stuff it should not,
> sometimes spouts non-useful error messages.

I wouldn't go that far, but, I do feel that something like this should not
have been overlooked unless there is an absolute reason for doing so. Since
I don't know the parser code, I don't know how easy a fix it is to ignore
the ending ";" but I do know that, IMHO, a comment desriptor should not be
introduced if it requires you to change the line you are commenting just to
get it to compile. This could lead to another error when you uncomment the
line and forget to put the ";" back in.

Woody