Re: Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER

> 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.  :-)

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026