On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 01:20:35PM -0400, LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> No, no, no!  String indexes have no implicit operators!  The require exact
> matches.  The consist of the entire contents of a field.
>
> Ralph

I don't want to push our interpretation as the "right" one, but we
used 'complete field' (completeness) for 'entire contents of a field',
not 'string'.

To me this just highlights the mess that we all know Bib-1 is, hence
my desire for CQL to define its own semantics rather than mandate
explicit attribute list bindings.

Alan

ps: To avoid further screams of pain from various list members, I am not
even going to mention the semantics we attached to 'string' versus 'word'
or 'phrase'! (But we do allow DB designers to change it! :-)