Why not year>1980 and year<1990 ?
>>> [log in to unmask] 05/28 4:52 nm >>>
> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:10:20 +0100
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
> > yr within "1980 1990"
> > I'm assuming that the quotes would be mandatory.
> The quotes would need to be there, otherwise it wouldn't parse as
I am mildly uncomfortable about having special syntax within a single
search-term like this, as a way of breaking apart what are actually
two separate terms. One one level I think it would be more honest to
introduce special syntax for this relation (so that "within") would be
part of the CQL grammar:
year within "1980" "1990"
year within "1980" and "1990"
year between "1980" and "1990"
where the word "and" here has nothing to do with boolean logic.)
The problem with this is that when you introduce a relation that takes
three terms (e.g. withinTriangle) you need more special syntax; and
more for searching within arbitrary polygons, etc. So this suggests
that Rob's approach may be better after all: all relations take a
single term, as before, but terms may have internal structure.
If we agree on the single-term-with-internal-structure approach, then
we need to decide what separates the subterms; and I guess whitespace
is as good an answer as any, since it's already semi-magical for the
purpose of separating words for the use of the "any" and "all"
All of this is by way of saying, in a rather roundabout way (:-) that
I agree with Rob's solution; though I recognise that it's a
> I would hope that the terms are the ISO standard, potentially
> truncated as above.
(This is an unrelated issue, of course.)
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
)_v__/\ "Well, as you know, Buck, the astral frobnicator functions
by bending time into a pretzel-like configuration [...] and
that's how we all live in the City of The Future" -- Steve
Lamont's sample "expositional lump".
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at