View Single Post

   
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-18-2008, 12:16 AM
Martijn van Oosterhout
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Allow an alias for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE

On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:04:14AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >If you don't like relying on file order to resolve this, appropriate
> >use of %prec would have the same effect (just like for operator
> >precedence). The output file tell you which way bison went.


> If we allow shift/reduce or reduce/reduce conflicts, debugging future
> development becomes more difficult. Right now we have the nice property
> that if you see one of those you know you've done something wrong (and
> using the expect directive isn't really a good answer, and only applies
> to shift/reduce conflicts anyway).


But that's the point of the %prec directive. To force bison to choose
one or the other, thus removing the warning... For an ambiguity that
only appears in one statement, it seems a better solution than upgrade
SET to a new class of identifier.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD0592IB7bNG8LQkwRAoUwAJ92H/ogUG3wlGhuVJz6ZzpyoQ2ulACfQp5q
Fa1RN5RnDkgVJB9jK4oMWss=
=5YAj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply With Quote