> Yes, that is true. There are several cases where we check just for =
> NULL and not NULL = in the internals, not the grammar.
That part is probably OK, since both statements are internalized to be
the same.
> > There is currently a single shift/reduce conflict in gram.y, and I'm
> > suprised to find that it is *not* due to the "NULL_P '=' a_expr" line.
> Yep. I got that working with precidence for NULL, I think.
Hmm.
> Any chance of making your signature Thomas, to not confuse it with Tom
> Lane?
I'm trying to, but it's *so* many letters to type...
- Tom^H^H^Hhomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California