See if this is readable (from a different mailer)
> Ray, what is wrong with the ability to define prefixes for any given
> subquery? We allow in XCQL. Why not in CQL as well? It may sound
> complex, but the CQL parsers I know of - all have this capability.
> repeat (more or less what Rob wrote way back), the ability to define
> prefixes for "sub queries" makes it easy to combine them. If you
> two arbitrary queries a and b and want to combine them, it becomes
> rather tricky with up-front prefixes only. First you have parse the
> front of a, then front of b. Then collect the prefixes, then
> rename the prefixes inside a, then b to avoid conflicts. For
> had you had the two queries:
> >dc="core-v1" dc.title=first
> >dc="core-v2" dc.title=second
> you would have to tranform that to something like:
> >dc1="core-v1" >dc2="core-v2" dc1.title=first and dc2.title=second
> Allow me to repeat the grammar in used by parsers and semantics for
> search-clause ::= ">" [identifier "="] term cql-query
Does this produce unambiguous cql?
(And I think I have my email settings corrected. We'll see.)
>dc1="core-v1" dc1.title=first and dc1.title=second
Is the second dc1 governed by the first assignment? If so, is that
the first assignment is "global" (and if so how do we know that) or
it is the most recent assignment for dc1?
>dc1="core-v1" dc1.title=first and >dc1="core-v1a" dc1.title=second
The third occurence of dc1 -- is it governed by the first or second
I suppose the only workable rule is that a prefix in a search clause
an assignment is governed by the most recent assignment for that
(thus no global assignment at the beginning of the query).
Anyway, I don't have any objection to this as long as we know (and
with) the semantics.