Thread

1. grammer/keywords/shift/reduce conflicts

   Brett McCormick <brett@work.chicken.org> — 1998-02-26T04:14:43Z

   well, by putting TRANSACTION and ORDER in the ColID grammer, I seem to
   have introduced some shift/reduce and reduce/reduce conflicts.. will
   the grammer work?  What are your thoughts on using these as column
   identifiers?  If they aren't going to end up usable I certainly won't
   use them as table/field names.. (order sounds like a really bad idea)
   
   

2. Re: [HACKERS] grammer/keywords/shift/reduce conflicts

   Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 1998-02-26T05:45:01Z

   > well, by putting TRANSACTION and ORDER in the ColID grammer, I seem to
   > have introduced some shift/reduce and reduce/reduce conflicts.. will
   > the grammer work?  What are your thoughts on using these as column
   > identifiers?  If they aren't going to end up usable I certainly won't
   > use them as table/field names.. (order sounds like a really bad idea)
   
   Yup. I think that the conflicts mean that there now would be ambiguous
   grammar. So, if you stumble across just the right statement and order of
   words, you may not get what you expected, and not be able to get what you
   want. Both "transaction" and "order" are pretty clearly SQL-ish words, so
   I wouldn't bother trying to make them work in other contexts...
   
                                     - Tom