Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
>
>Having two parsers would be a nightmare to maintain.
>
>
Probably. It just came to my mind because one visitor mentioned he would
look at the bison stuff to do it himself. I meant to enable him to do so
if he likes (and can) without hacking the core product.
>If anything one could have one parser that handles oracle syntax and give
>errors on such constructs unless some variable is set.
>
>The question is how much of the problems that are pure syntax and what
>needs deeper changes. My guess is that just changing some syntax will not
>be enough to make many oracle program work.
>
>
>
That's true, it's the question how much can be offered without too much
effort.
I'm not too deep in oracle stuff, what comes to my mind is
- outer join syntax (parser thing)
- sequences usage (parser too)
- maybe stored procedure call, with a wrapper to convert output
parameters to a composite return value.
There's certainly no point supporting any weird ddl command, so there's
still porting work to be done when migrating.
Regards,
Andreas
