Tom Lane wrote:
> It would also be worth remembering that "-" is far from the only unary
> operator name we have, and so a solution that creates special behavior
> just for "-" is really no solution at all. Making a special case for
> "-" just increases the potential for confusion, not decreases it, IMHO.
Ok. Especially if there are more unary operators (I always wondered
what unary % in gram.y stands for :) it is reasonable not to make
a special case of uminus and slightly change the old behavior. That
is even more convincing that constructs like 3+-2 and 3+-b were
parsed in different way, and, what is worse, a>-2 and a>-b also
parsed differently. So let us ask the (hopefully) last question:
Thomas (Lockhart), do you agree on always parsing constructs like
'+-' or '>-' as is, and not as '+' '-' or '>' '-' ?
--
Leon.
