> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:51:45 -0500
> From: Sebastian Hammer <[log in to unmask]>
>> (And, by the way, the absence of that facility in CQL is a mistake.)
> Well, a very deliberate mistake, if it is... I remember this issue
> being brought up the very first time Ralph proposed CQL, and I
> agreed... CQL is already hard enough to parse without that weirdness
> in it.
Please don't perpetuate the myth that CQL is hard to parse. The
multiple free implementations testify that it is actually extremely
easy to parse.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "[The cheese factory] beneath Covenant hung insubstantial,
lambent nacreous sepulchral vitriol ..." -- Mike Lessacher.