> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:11:48 +0100
> From: Jakob Voss <[log in to unmask]>
>> My immediate feeling was that a prox-based solution would just
>> scare everyone off because, well, prox is scary. But maybe people
>> feel the same way about relation-modifiers, too.
> Proximity search is not scary but rarely implemented, documented and
> used. There are some workarounds
I am referring to proximity's ability to scare implementors, not
>> Maybe the pragmatic approach is to introduce a new boolean, "with",
>> which is explicitly defined to nothing more or less than an
>> abbreviation of prox/unit=element/distance=0. Then server
>> implementors can tackle "with" free of Proximity Fear.
> Nobody will type in "prox/unit=element/distance=0" by hand. The common
> expression for proximity is "near" so please don't introduce something
I think you've missed an earlier part of the discussion. CQL already
has nice, general syntax for the general proximity searching. What
we're talking about here is whether a specific case of proxmity ("same
element" searching) is best expressed using proximity with a specific
set of parameters, and if so whether it merits an alias such as "with"
or "where". For this, "near" would be totally inappropriate.
/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.