Re: Re: UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT

To answer my own question, of course that's no good because there are
constants and other stuff. Another suggestion, could we take the SQL
standards group out the back and have them flogged? :-)

>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Chris <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > >> the grammar is just plain not LR(1) unless you
> > >> count UNION JOIN as a single token.
> >
> > > Would it be bad to make UNION JOIN as a single token?
> >
> > That's exactly the solution I'm proposing. However, it's pretty painful
> > to make the lexer do it directly (consider intervening comments, for
> > example)
>
> Comments are a pain in the parser. What if something prior to the lexer
> filtered out comments before either the lexer or parser could see them?
> Would it be as easy as s/--.*// before the lexer?