> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:17:12 -0500
> From: Sebastian Hammer <[log in to unmask]>
>> 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.
> I'm sorry, but I can't help you there. Yes, CQL is quite easy to
> parse *because* there are multiple free implementations out there to
> choose from [...] Anyone who isn't comfortable with parsing
> techniques would be much better advised to re-use an existing
> freeware module than to try to take in on themselves.
(We probably shouldn't be having this argument in public, but ...)
Well, sure. That seems so obvious as hardly to be worth saying.
> It is not, in fact, trivial for a lot of casual programmers to parse
> a recursively defined query language with infix operators, and there
> are many, many ways to do that incorrectly.
Well, yeah. It is true that people who have never learned how to
implement recursive-descent parsers from BNF grammars are going to
struggle to implement a recursive-descent CQL parser from its BNF
grammar. That is not a property of the CQL grammar, though, which is
about as straightforward as a non-toy grammar gets.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "[Football is] not all about winning trophies. Except it is,
isn't it?" -- Derry Mercer.