Mike Taylor wrote:
> statement then bow out. CQL was _always_ designed to be
> human-comprehensible (ain't it so, Ralph?) Why do that if not so that
> humans can read it and write it.
"read it" and "write it" are two different things. It was always a premise
that humans can read it. That's a premise of XML too, which is not intended
to be human-writeable. I think when we discussed cql
human-comprehensibility, we neglected to draw this distinction, so I would
say (at this stage), there hasn't been a premise of human-writeability.