Re: Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER

> 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?
>

They have not been there for _years_. I see lots of open source stuff
with shift/reduce reports. We don't. It is tricky to remove them. It
often involves adding duplicate actions to prevent the problems.
Certain people are quite good at it, and are glad to help.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026