Print

Print


Mike Taylor wrote:
>>Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:51:45 -0500
>>From: Sebastian Hammer <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>>(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.
> 
> 
> Please don't perpetuate the myth that CQL is hard to parse.  The
> multiple free implementations testify that it is actually extremely
> easy to parse.

I'm sorry, but I can't help you there. Yes, CQL is quite easy to parse
*because* there are multiple free implementations out there to choose
from. It is not, in fact, trivial for a lot of casual programmers to
parse a recursively defined query language with infix operators, and
there are many, many ways to do that incorrectly. Anyone who isn't
comfortable   with parsing techniques would be much better advised to
re-use an existing freeware module than to try to take in on themselves.

--Sebastian

> 
>  _/|_	 ___________________________________________________________________
> /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.
> 

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