Sam Vilain wrote:
> David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>> From my experience with working on Set::Relation and the Rosetta DBMS
>>> (and the now defunct SQL::Routine), if you *really* want to have an
>>> explicit AST that says exactly what you mean, is expressive enough
>>> for 99+% of any real-world uses, and is very portable, you
>>> essentially have to define a whole turing complete language,
>>> including the basics (which is what I am doing).
>> I think that's true if you want to write an RDBMS. But we're just
>> trying to support SELECT statements, here.
>
> We can do both, if you allow a "function call" and "function
> application" to be the basic operations of your language. Works for lisp.
Which is rather what I'm trying to move the syntax towards, so we can use a
heavily functional approach in the generation stages and macro-like things to
do comprehensions across the explicit AST.
--
Matt S Trout Offering custom development, consultancy and support
Technical Director contracts for Catalyst, DBIx::Class and BAST. Contact
Shadowcat Systems Ltd. mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for more information
+ Help us build a better perl ORM: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ +
_______________________________________________
List: http://lists.rawmode.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
Wiki: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/trunk/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
