| From: | <korryd(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Scanner/Parser question - what does _P imply? |
| Date: | 2007-01-25 20:34:47 |
| Message-ID: | 1169757287.14369.9.camel@sakai.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Some years ago there was discussion of consistently P-ifying *all* those
> > macros, but it didn't get done; I think Thomas or somebody objected that
> > it would make gram.y needlessly harder to read.
>
> Are there many people who read gram.y on a regular base?
I can't seem to put it down :-)
>From the back cover:
A rollercoaster ride of passion, heart-stopping adventures, and
gut-wrenching laughs ... every bit as thrilling as copyfuncs.c,
more of a tearjerker than bufmgr.c, and as deliciously naughty
as MySQL's item.cc.
Get gram.y, in stores now (or order at Amazon.com, delivered in a plain
brown wrapper).
-- Korry
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-01-25 20:36:49 | Re: BUG #2917: spi_prepare doesn't accept typename aliases |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2007-01-25 19:38:03 | Re: Scanner/Parser question - what does _P imply? |