Re: Non-decimal integer literals

On 25.11.21 18:51, John Naylor wrote:
> If we're going to change the comment anyway, "the parser" sounds more 
> natural. Aside from that, 0001 and 0002 can probably be pushed now, if 
> you like.

done

> --- a/src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/pgc.l
> +++ b/src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/pgc.l
> @@ -365,6 +365,10 @@ real ({integer}|{decimal})[Ee][-+]?{digit}+
>   realfail1 ({integer}|{decimal})[Ee]
>   realfail2 ({integer}|{decimal})[Ee][-+]
> 
> +integer_junk {integer}{ident_start}
> +decimal_junk {decimal}{ident_start}
> +real_junk {real}{ident_start}
> 
> A comment might be good here to explain these are only in ECPG for 
> consistency with the other scanners. Not really important, though.

Yeah, it's a bit weird that not all the symbols are used in ecpg.  I'll 
look into explaining this better.

> 0006
> 
> +{hexfail} {
> + yyerror("invalid hexadecimal integer");
> + }
> +{octfail} {
> + yyerror("invalid octal integer");
>    }
> -{decimal} {
> +{binfail} {
> + yyerror("invalid binary integer");
> + }
> 
> It seems these could use SET_YYLLOC(), since the error cursor doesn't 
> match other failure states:

ok

> We might consider some tests for ECPG since lack of coverage has been a 
> problem.

right

> Also, I'm curious: how does the spec work as far as deciding the year of 
> release, or feature-freezing of new items?

The schedule has recently been extended again, so the current plan is 
for SQL:202x with x=3, with feature freeze in mid-2022.

So the feature patches in this thread are in my mind now targeting 
PG15+1.  But the preparation work (up to v5-0005, and some other number 
parsing refactoring that I'm seeing) could be considered for PG15.

I'll move this to the next CF and come back with an updated patch set in 
a little while.