Re: Re: UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT

From: Chris <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT
Date: 2000-08-29 00:58:23
Message-ID: 39AB0AAF.C675F7C7@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Chris <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> >> the grammar is just plain not LR(1) unless you
> >> count UNION JOIN as a single token.
>
> > Would it be bad to make UNION JOIN as a single token?
>
> That's exactly the solution I'm proposing. However, it's pretty painful
> to make the lexer do it directly (consider intervening comments, for
> example)

Comments are a pain in the parser. What if something prior to the lexer
filtered out comments before either the lexer or parser could see them?
Would it be as easy as s/--.*// before the lexer?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris 2000-08-29 01:07:25 Re: Re: UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-08-29 00:27:27 Re: Re: UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT