On Tuesday 25 November 2008 15:09:37 Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > While hacking on parser/gram.y just now I noticed in passing that the
> > automatically generated ecpg parser had 402 shift/reduce conflicts.
> > (Don't panic, the parser in CVS is fine.) If you don't pay very close
> > attention, it is easy to miss this. Considering also that we frequently
> > have to educate contributors that parser conflicts are not acceptable,
> > should we try to error out if we see conflicts?
>
> Would "%expect 0" produce the same result in a less klugy way?
Great, that works. I'll see about adding this to our parser files.
