> Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:20:53 -0400
> From: Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Not that the discussion has been all that useful
> in trying to figure out what people really want
> but it's time to focus on stabalizing this.  I've
> put it up at
> http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/cql.html

Mostly looks good.  Just two questions/suggestions.

First, the trivial one.  Can we change the "result-set" keyword to
something without a hyphen in the middle?  That will make
implementation easier, since the lexer won't need a special case.  I
suggest "resultSet", especially since we already have the analogous
"sameParagraph" and "sameSentence".

(And related to this, I notice that ":" is no longer a rel-op -- quite
right, since it was synonymous with "=" anyway.  So I suggest that we
redeploy ":" in the syntax for result-set-expression --

        "resultSet" ":" identifier

And BTW, why must it be an identifier rather than an atomic-token?)

OK, all that was my first point :-)

The second is scruglier.  I don't understand why we have all the
and/or/not logic repreoduced in the definition of a term when we
already have all that machinery higher up in the grammar.  Can you
give an illustrative example of a query that uses both kinds of "and"?

HTH.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <[log in to unmask]>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Scientists nearly all the time [...] have the assumption
         that all religion is silly superstition.  That all religious
         belief is stuff you've got to cure yourself of, get rid of,
         if you're going to be a good scientist.  Noooooooo." --
         Robert Bakker.