Re: Allow an alias for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:

>Shift/reduce and reduce/reduce errors still produce valid working
>parsers, it's just that bison has to resolve an ambiguity by the
>default (shift, otherwise earliest rule wins. maximum munch rule
>really).
>
>If you don't like relying on file order to resolve this, appropriate
>use of %prec would have the same effect (just like for operator
>precedence). The output file tell you which way bison went.
>
>
>
>

If we allow shift/reduce or reduce/reduce conflicts, debugging future
development becomes more difficult. Right now we have the nice property
that if you see one of those you know you've done something wrong (and
using the expect directive isn't really a good answer, and only applies
to shift/reduce conflicts anyway).

cheers

andrew