On 7 September 2010 15:50, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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 am not necessarily advocating this approach, but the most common way
of producing implementations has been to port CQL-Java to other
languages. So that's an option.
> 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.
You're right, I should publish an alternative.
Not likely to happen right now, though.