> 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