> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So should I go ahead and submit a patch for BETWEEN that adds SYMMETRY
> > support in the old-style code, and then at a later stage submit
> a patch that
> > makes BETWEEN a proper node?
>
> I'd prefer to do it in one step. I have not
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So should I go ahead and submit a patch for BETWEEN that adds SYMMETRY
> support in the old-style code, and then at a later stage submit a patch that
> makes BETWEEN a proper node?
I'd prefer to do it in one step. I have not noticed any lar
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > So should I go ahead and submit a patch for BETWEEN that adds SYMMETRY
> > > support in the old-style code, and then at a later stage submit
> > a patch that
> > > makes BETWEEN a proper node?
> >
> > Sure, I think that makes sense. The larger BETWEEN node cod
> > So should I go ahead and submit a patch for BETWEEN that adds SYMMETRY
> > support in the old-style code, and then at a later stage submit
> a patch that
> > makes BETWEEN a proper node?
>
> Sure, I think that makes sense. The larger BETWEEN node code will be
> tricky.
Question: Why have you
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > TODO updated:
> >
> > > * Add BETWEEN ASYMMETRIC/SYMMETRIC (Christopher)
> > > * Christopher is Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> So should I go ahead and submit a patch for BETWEEN that adds SYMMETRY
> support in the old-style code, and then at a
> TODO updated:
>
> > * Add BETWEEN ASYMMETRIC/SYMMETRIC (Christopher)
> > * Christopher is Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So should I go ahead and submit a patch for BETWEEN that adds SYMMETRY
support in the old-style code, and then at a later stage submit a patch that
makes BETWEEN
TODO updated:
> * Add BETWEEN ASYMMETRIC/SYMMETRIC (Christopher)
> * Christopher is Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since it's really just two ways of writing the same thing, wouldn't bison
> just produce the exact same C code? I'll rewrite it anyway for elegance,
> but just wondering...
The emitted code might or might not be the same --- but duplicate o
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, Tom (or anyone): in regards to your previous email,
> should I just go
> > back to using opt_symmetry to shorten the number of productions, since I
> > have to make them reserved words anyway?
>
> Might as well. No point in writing
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, Tom (or anyone): in regards to your previous email, should I just go
> back to using opt_symmetry to shorten the number of productions, since I
> have to make them reserved words anyway?
Might as well. No point in writing more product
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Can someone comment on my use of %prec BETWEEN? Is that still
> correct now
> > that we have the extra BETWEEN forms?
>
> Looks fine. AFAICS we want all these forms to have the binding
> precedence assigned to BETWEEN. If you don't do
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can someone comment on my use of %prec BETWEEN? Is that still correct now
> that we have the extra BETWEEN forms?
Looks fine. AFAICS we want all these forms to have the binding
precedence assigned to BETWEEN. If you don't do the %prec thi
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > You seem to have forgotten to update keywords.c.
>
> OK - works perfectly now :)
>
> Now I'm going to play with making the SYMMERIC and ASYMMETRIC keywords less
> reserved...
>
> Can someone comment on my use of %prec BETWE
> Chris,
>
> You seem to have forgotten to update keywords.c.
OK - works perfectly now :)
Now I'm going to play with making the SYMMERIC and ASYMMETRIC keywords less
reserved...
Can someone comment on my use of %prec BETWEEN? Is that still correct now
that we have the extra BETWEEN forms?
Chr
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've attached a patch for doing BETWEEN SYM/ASYM, however it just doesn't
> work!!!
>
> test=# select 2 between 1 and 3;
> ?column?
> --
> t
> (1 row)
>
> test=# select 2 between 3 and 1;
> ?column?
> --
> f
Hi all,
I've attached a patch for doing BETWEEN SYM/ASYM, however it just doesn't
work!!!
test=# select 2 between 1 and 3;
?column?
--
t
(1 row)
test=# select 2 between 3 and 1;
?column?
--
f
(1 row)
test=# select 2 between symmetric 3 and 1;
ERROR: parser: parse error at
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was forced to put SYMMETRIC and ASYMMETRIC as reserved words - anything
> else seemed to give shift/reduce errors. Is there anything I can do about
> that?
First thought is "don't try to be cute": forget the opt_asymmetry
clause, and inst
*sigh*
I actually attached the diff this time...
Chris
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christopher
> Kings-Lynne
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2002 12:26 PM
> To: Hackers
> Subject: [HACKERS] BETWEEN SYMMETRIC/AS
Hi All,
As part of my ongoing quest to understand grammar files, I've been trying to
implement BETWEEN SYMMETRIC/ASYMMETRIC.
I've attached my current work. Can someone please look and tell me if I'm
on the right track? With this patch, I get parse errors after BETWEEN if I
go:
SELECT 2 BETWEE
"Robert B. Easter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This quote from the SQL standard (1999) has it:
Oh, I didn't realize SQL99 had added it. Creeping featurism strikes
again ;-). Well, I suppose it'll get added to PG whenever someone
feels like implementing it, then ...
re
>
> I don't really see this as important enough to justify introducing a
> nonstandard syntax for it...
>
> regards, tom lane
Sorry to quote like this, it makes me feel like a real nerd. :)
This quote from the SQL standard (1999) has it:
8.3
Function
"Robert B. Easter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> subselects=# SELECT 2 BETWEEN 3 AND 1;
> ?column?
> --
> f
> (1 row)
SQL92 quoth:
6) "X BETWEEN Y AND Z" is equivalent to "X>=Y AND X<=Z".
so this is correct behavior, even if it might seem surprising.
> Any chance of BETWEEN
Here is current cvs:
SELECT 2 BETWEEN 1 AND 3;
?column?
--
t
(1 row)
subselects=# SELECT 2 BETWEEN 3 AND 1;
?column?
--
f
(1 row)
Any chance of BETWEEN [SYMMETRIC | ASYMMETRIC] being implemented?
SELECT 2 BETWEEN SYMMETRIC 3 AND 1;
?column?
--
t
(1 row)
ASYMM
23 matches
Mail list logo
