Re: New CORRESPONDING clause design

2017-03-13 14:13 GMT+01:00 Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>:

>
>
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> I am sending minor update - cleaning formatting and white spaces, error
>> messages + few more tests
>>
>
> Thank you very much for your help
>
>
>> Maybe correspondingClause needs own node type with attached location.
>> Then context can be much better positioned.
>>
>
>
> I think we can solve it by using your option or using expr_list for
> corresponding column and check the syntax manually.
>
> In my opinion, the last option eliminate the introduction of new node for
> only the sake of error position.
>
>
> What did you think about the second option?
>

I don't like it too much - using expr only for location is too misuse.

Some errors are related to just CORRESPONDING without any columns. So using
expr doesn't help here. So parse node CORRESPONDING can solve both issues.

Regards

Pavel

>
> Regards
>
> Surafel
>
>
>
>