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.
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. |