Absolutely. I wasn't being critical, just suggesting another reason why it would be a less than optimum idea to modify the shell to parse the text of SQL statements. I understand it was a surprising situation, and you didn't "bother me". This is a forum where people share ideas and exchange information. If I were of a mind to, I could say "sorry for having bothered you by trying to share a rationale you might not have considered". But that would be a rude thing for me to do, so I won't. It is sentences like your last that lead people to not want to be helpful, because it becomes simply easier to ignore than to engage. For the second time in recent history, I'm going to assume that was not your intent, but using words like "sorry to have bothered you" come off as sarcasm as though there is no "sorry" and "my exceptional finding" as though you deserve high praise for reporting a finding that came from feeding pathological text into a library. It is good to know this so that people can be aware of the issue in the future (though the fact that it has never come up before this report suggests there aren't many people trying to use it this way; nevertheless, it is suboptimal that it behaves this way with unanticipated text). It is a reasonable idea that in almost every other possible circumstance it would be preferable to improve the performance of the shell program when such behavior is found. I thought another perspective might have been helpful. There is no more or less to my comment.