Re: Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER
Date: 2000-05-26 01:31:55
Message-ID: 200005260131.VAA19027@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Tom Lane wrote:
> > If you don't get rid of those then your parser will behave in surprising
> > ways. So far you have noticed the fallout from only one of those
> > conflicts, but every one of them is a potential bug. Be advised that
> > gram.y patches that create unresolved conflicts will *not* be accepted.
>
> I thought shift/reduce conflicts were part and parcel of most language
> syntaxes. reduce/reduce being rather more naughty. The standard syntax
> already produces 95 shift/reduce conflicts. Can you clarify about
> unresolved conflicts not being accepted?

What? I get zero here. shift/reduce is sloppy programming. We don't
do that here. :-)

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2000-05-26 01:34:32 Re: \dS and \df <pattern> crashing psql
Previous Message Kevin Lo 2000-05-26 01:21:40 [DONE] PostgreSQL-7.0 binary for WinNT