Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer
От | Leon |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 37CEA05B.9DA7047F@udmnet.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > It would also be worth remembering that "-" is far from the only unary > operator name we have, and so a solution that creates special behavior > just for "-" is really no solution at all. Making a special case for > "-" just increases the potential for confusion, not decreases it, IMHO. Ok. Especially if there are more unary operators (I always wondered what unary % in gram.y stands for :) it is reasonable not to make a special case of uminus and slightly change the old behavior. That is even more convincing that constructs like 3+-2 and 3+-b were parsed in different way, and, what is worse, a>-2 and a>-b also parsed differently. So let us ask the (hopefully) last question: Thomas (Lockhart), do you agree on always parsing constructs like '+-' or '>-' as is, and not as '+' '-' or '>' '-' ? -- Leon.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: