Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes

Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> 
> > Thomas Lockhart should speak up - he seems the only person who
> > has objections yet. If the proposed thing is to be declined, something
> > has to be applied instead in respect to lexer reject feature and
> > accompanying size limits, as well as grammar inconsistency.
> 
> Hmm. I'd suggest that we go with the "greedy lexer" solution, which
> continues to gobble characters which *could* be an operator until
> other characters or whitespace are encountered.

'Xcuse my dumbness ;) , but is it in any way different from 
what is proposed (by me and some others?)

-- 
Leon.
-------
He knows he'll never have to answer for any of his theories actually 
being put to test. If they were, they would be contaminated by reality.