Re: Erroring out on parser conflicts

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 November 2008 15:09:37 Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > > While hacking on parser/gram.y just now I noticed in passing that the
> > > automatically generated ecpg parser had 402 shift/reduce conflicts.
> > > (Don't panic, the parser in CVS is fine.) If you don't pay very close
> > > attention, it is easy to miss this. Considering also that we frequently
> > > have to educate contributors that parser conflicts are not acceptable,
> > > should we try to error out if we see conflicts?
> >
> > Would "%expect 0" produce the same result in a less klugy way?
>
> Great, that works. I'll see about adding this to our parser files.

FYI, this is going to make it hard for developers to test CVS changes
until they get their grammar cleaned up; perhaps add a comment on how
to disable the check?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +