Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER

Tom Lane wrote:
> State 17 contains 1 shift/reduce conflict.
> State 257 contains 1 shift/reduce conflict.
> State 359 contains 4 shift/reduce conflicts.
> State 595 contains 1 shift/reduce conflict.
> State 1106 contains 2 reduce/reduce conflicts.
> State 1260 contains 127 shift/reduce conflicts.
> State 1484 contains 2 reduce/reduce conflicts.
> State 1485 contains 2 reduce/reduce conflicts.
> State 1486 contains 2 reduce/reduce conflicts.
> 
> 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?