Gregory Stark wrote:
> Woah, I just realized it's much worse than that. I think the syntax in the
> ANSI is not parsable in LALR(1) at all. Note the following:
>
> WITH RECURSIVE foo (a,b) AS (subq) SEARCH BREADTH FIRST BY a,b,c(x,z),d(y,z) AS (subq) SELECT ...
>
> To determine whether "c" is the name of a new <with list element> it has to
> scan as far ahead as the "," before the "d". Note that "d" here is in fact not
> part of the <search clause> at all, it's the name of a second <with list
> element>.
>
> bleagh.
>
>
Can you post the rules you have so far that you're playing around with?
(Also maybe the rules from the standard - I don't have a copy handy).
cheers
andrew
