On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Also, it strikes me that we could significantly reduce, maybe even fully
> eliminate, the funny behaviors around the existing base_yylex()
> substitutions if we made them use the same idea, ie replace the leading
> token with something special but keep the second token's separate
> identity. Unless somebody sees a hole in this idea, I'll probably go
> do that and then come back to the precedence issues.
IIRC that's exactly what the earlier patch for this did.
--
greg
