| From: | Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER |
| Date: | 2000-05-26 02:06:44 |
| Message-ID: | 392DDC34.B15ABE21@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > 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? I get zero here. shift/reduce is sloppy programming. We don't
> do that here. :-)
Hmm. Now I look, I think that was with an older pgsql. Maybe 6.5 or
something. Have you guys done some black magic to get rid of them?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias Urlichs | 2000-05-26 02:09:06 | Re: Berkeley DB... |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-05-26 01:53:55 | Re: [HACKERS] [DONE] PostgreSQL-7.0 binary for WinNT |