Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> is there a reason why we sometimes use ICONST and SCONST directly in a rule in
> gram.y yet in other rules use Iconst and Sconst which in turn resolve to
> ICONST
> and SCONST? Some rules even use ICONST and Sconst, so there does not be any
> consistency.
Seems like an obvious no-op.
> If this has no reason I'd like to make all rules use the same
> symbol which will make gram.y be consequent in its symbol usage and simplify
> my
> work to generate the ecpg parser out of an unchanged gram.y at the same time.
Which direction are you hoping to go --- remove Iconst/Sconst, or use
them everywhere?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
