Nando Dessena wrote:

>Adriano,
>
>A> The ambiguity I told already exist with UPDATE for example, and you can
>A> resolve it with :variable.
>
>UPDATE has a SET clause; I can't see the ambiguity.
>
>

I'm propably sleeping yet. :-)

>A> But also I think Dmitry's syntax break the parser, it's not LALR(1) when
>A> "x = 1" is a valid expression.
>
>Would that (not being 100% LARL(1) - assuming the current grammar is)
>be such a huge problem?
>

It's a huge problem with the current parser. IMO it's a huge problem
even with a RDP.
I would like to know Dmitry opinion re. this syntax and boolean expressions.


Adriano