From: selkovjr@mcs.anl.gov
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] esql\c documentation
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:46:39 -0400
Message-ID: <199906220143.UAA24345@antares.mcs.anl.gov> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.990621155607.orsingerc@epg-gw1.lewis.army.mil>
> On 18-Jun-99 Michael Meskes wrote:
> >> It doesn't work (in 6.4.2 and earlier, at least) without that 'IN'.
> >> In checking through the test source in the 6.5 version (directory
> >> <source root>/src/interfaces/ecpg/test), I notice that the
> >> 'IN' is still included in all the FETCH statements. I don't know why I
> >
> > The standard wants to see IN. Simply omitting it wouldn't even work with our
> > parser. It creates a shift/reduce conflict. Of course we could fix that but
> > I doubt adding a non-standard feature is worth that effort.
Excuse me -- what's wrong with shift/reduce conflicts? I have over a
hundred of those in one of my applications.
--Gene
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: selkovjr@mcs.anl.gov
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] esql\c documentation
In-Reply-To: <199906220143.UAA24345@antares.mcs.anl.gov>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox