3 ms·
> We support most cases, except the ones that are too complicated to implement or cause grammar conflicts. It would be really helpful if the author had provide
by crazygringo 2y ago
> We support most cases, except the ones that are too complicated to implement or cause grammar conflicts.
It would be really helpful if the author had provided at least a couple of these.
I can't think of any obvious examples that would be complicated/conflicting, so it's not even clear if this is real complexity or not. I mean, it might be, but let's at least demonstrate that concretely?
SQL grammar is pretty limited. Surely it can't take more than half an hour or so to check if any grammatical ambiguities could be introduced -- or at least a quick first pass? This whole post is postulating about theoreticals when it could just answer some of them.
- kevincox 2y agoYeah, this seems like the best option. I don't get the author's confusion > Option 2 is weird, how do you determine the cutoff? The cutoff seems obvious. If it is currently always a syntax error allow a comma, if it can be valid syntax preserve the existing behaviour. I also can't think of any other cases right now, but if needed there can be a few places that don't allow trailing commas. As long as SELECT and CREATE TABLE support it 99% of the benefit will be there.