Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Dear patchers,
>
> Well, as the discussion rages over my previous patch submissions, I've
> time to improve the code;-)
>
> I finally figured out that there is 2 errhint functions (elog.c vs
> ipc_text.c), and the one I'm calling is the fist one, so I need to put a
> for
Dear Bruce,
> Why did all the tags have to be renamed:
>
> + cmdGRANT: GRANT {noH;};
that's a good question.
In order to add hints, I want to attach them to the states of the parser
automaton. So as to do that, I need I put a name on every state, so I need
to refactor the prefix that lead
Fabien COELHO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Also, what is typical output for a hint? Can you show one?
> Well, the current status of the infrastructure is that there is no hint;-)
Ah, now I remember why I was waiting to review that stuff: I was expecting
you to come out with a version that actu
Dear Tom,
> > Well, the current status of the infrastructure is that there is no hint;-)
>
> Ah, now I remember why I was waiting to review that stuff: I was expecting
> you to come out with a version that actually did some things :-(
Well, if you wait for something from me, it is better to tell
Fabien COELHO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can resubmit a new patch that would provide the needed infrastructure
> AND some hints on some commands as a proof of concept of what can be
> achieved.
I quite agree that you shouldn't do a complete implementation when it's
not clear if we'll accept i
