> I've spent a bunch of time looking at this series and here's my take on
> the second one.
Thanks!
> I realized that the whole in_expr production in gram.y is pointless, and
> the whole private struct that was added was unnecessary. A much simpler
> solution is to remove in_expr, expand its use in a_expr to the two
> possibilities, and with that we can remove the need for a new struct.
Nice simplification.
> I also added a recursive call in IsSquashableExpression to itself. The
I agree with this. I was thinking about a follow-up patch for this based on
the discussion above, but why not just add it now.
> Barring objections, I'll push this soon, then look at rebasing 0003 on
> top, which I expect to be an easy job.
LGTM.
--
Sami