Mike Taylor wrote:
> No, there is no such validator. That is because the formal
> specification of CQL was developed separately from, and subsequent to,
> the actual implementation. It also has several bugs in it. All in
> all, I would advice ignoring the formal specification completely.
Um, in favor of what? If not the formal specification, what else could
one use to determine what is and is not legal CQL?
I get that you are not happy with the formal specification, and think it
should have been otherwise. But unless you want to try to develop your
own and convince people to use your own instead of the current one, I'm
not sure what good it does to tell people to ignore the specification.