 |
 |
Ralph wrote: > I think we've gotten to the point that we have to concede > that we have not built a language for end users. Client > software is going to have to parse the user's original > query and rebuild it as a CQL query. So, this kind of > richness in the grammer is not really much of a problem. > Yes!! Ralph wrote: > I do both word and string indexing on nearly every field. > Users want to browse the complete phrase but search by words. > Yes!! I do not like the "=^" and so on proposal. Again this is mixing user interface and protocol. "=^" adds nothing to the functionality of the protocol. It is an idea for a new style of user interface. The main reasons to allow "a b c" is that users and server exteral parsers are unable to identify atomic word tokens. Sometimes there are no word tokens. The best thing to do is to make them "opaque" for the protocol. Let the server do it's magic. Rob Koopman