Mike Taylor wrote:

>>Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:26:23 -0500
>>From: Sebastian Hammer <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>But to summarise the relationship between CCL and CQL: the
>>>intention when CQL was being design (initially by Ralph, and
>>>subsequently by the SRW editorial board as a whole) was that it
>>>should be pretty much a superset of CCL, and that it therefore sets
>>>out to provide _additional_ syntax rather than _alternative_
>>>syntax.  So what you would hope to find is that most CCL queries
>>>are also CQL queries with the same interpretation, but that you go
>>>on to say much more in CQL.
>>>      
>>>
>>AFAIK, one of the crucial differences (unless this was changed in
>>CQL?)  is that the CCL spec doesn't require quotes around multi-word
>>terms...  this makes the grammar and parsing of CCL queries somewhat
>>more challenging.
>>    
>>
>
>Hmm, I thought that was one of Adam's private enhancements.  Darn!  If
>only the standard were actually _available_, we could check!  :-)
>  
>
Oh no, it's part of the standard.

>(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.

--Seb

> _/|_	 ___________________________________________________________________
>/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
>)_v__/\  "An intellectual is a man who says a simple thing in a difficult
>	 way; an artist is a man who says a difficult thing in a simple
>	 way" -- Charles Bukowski.
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Sebastian Hammer, Index Data (US)
[log in to unmask]   www.indexdata.com
Ph: (603) 209-6853