Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > $ wc InterBase/dsql/parse.y
> > 4217 13639 103059 InterBase/dsql/parse.y
> > $ wc postgresql-7.0.2/src/backend/parser/gram.y
> > 5858 20413 149104 postgresql-7.0.2/src/backend/parser/gram.y
> Hmm. I suspect that I could shrink our gram.y by ~25% just by removing
> comments and C support routines, and by consolidating some execution
> blocks onto fewer lines. Does it look like their parse.y is more dense
> than ours, do they do a lot of postprocessing to eliminate the yacc
> rules, or have we missed the boat on writing the grammar in yacc?
> Just curious; I probably won't look myself since I don't want to run the
> risk of compromising our code and licensing. Or is that not an issue
> with the Inprise license?
I had a bit of a look. There's no obvious reason, just maybe postgres
has a few more comments and a bit more code inside the action blocks. No
obvious problem here.
It would be a pity if we can't look and learn from Interbase in this
instance, because this is one area where there is at least a possibility
of borrowing something useful.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Karel Zak||Date: 2000-07-26 07:04:21|
|Subject: Re: New Privilege model purposal|
|Previous:||From: Thomas Lockhart||Date: 2000-07-26 05:21:06|
|Subject: Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source|