Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer

From: Leon <leon(at)udmnet(dot)ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer
Date: 1999-09-02 16:05:47
Message-ID: 37CEA05B.9DA7047F@udmnet.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> It would also be worth remembering that "-" is far from the only unary
> operator name we have, and so a solution that creates special behavior
> just for "-" is really no solution at all. Making a special case for
> "-" just increases the potential for confusion, not decreases it, IMHO.

Ok. Especially if there are more unary operators (I always wondered
what unary % in gram.y stands for :) it is reasonable not to make
a special case of uminus and slightly change the old behavior. That
is even more convincing that constructs like 3+-2 and 3+-b were
parsed in different way, and, what is worse, a>-2 and a>-b also
parsed differently. So let us ask the (hopefully) last question:
Thomas (Lockhart), do you agree on always parsing constructs like
'+-' or '>-' as is, and not as '+' '-' or '>' '-' ?

--
Leon.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 1999-09-02 16:13:48 Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer
Previous Message Leon 1999-09-02 15:38:20 Lexer again.