Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> 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's to clarify? The existing grammar does produce a long list of
*resolved* conflicts, which are not very interesting (they just indicate
that we are using operator precedence rules instead of creating a
detailed grammar for expressions). Unresolved conflicts are a far
more serious problem, because they tell you that there is an unreachable
part of your language. As indeed was happening to you in this case.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2000-05-26 02:15:41|
|Subject: Re: Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER|
|Previous:||From: Matthias Urlichs||Date: 2000-05-26 02:09:06|
|Subject: Re: Berkeley DB...|