Seems good. To be more explicitly, we could refer variables by appending $
mark.. For example,
[
{ fn: "ref", ref: "user.gender"},
{ fn: "equals", val1: "$0", val2: "male"}
{ fn: "equals", val1: "$0", val2: "female"}
{ fn: "isnull", val1: "$0"}
{ fn: "case", cases: [
{ condition: "$1", output: ":/" },
{ condition: "$2", output: ":)"},
{ condition: "$3", output: ":("},
{ condition: "$4", output: ":o"}
]}
]
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]>wrote:
> I've been working on blowing out some example logical plans. Originally, I
> was thinking that embedded expressions would be okay (see my previous
> email). As I work through it, I think that utilizing ssa-ish
> representation makes more sense for the logical plan. An example of this
> might be:
>
> Original Expression:
>
> left(regex("activity.cookie", "persistent=([^;]*)"), 3)
>
> New Expression
>
> [
> { fn: "def", ref: "activity.cookie"},
> { fn: "regex", val: "0", pattern: "persistent=([^;]*)"}
> { fn: "left", val: "1", length: "3" }
> ]
>
> Everything becomes a function. Even case statements. For clarity, a
> function can receive nested arguments.
>
> CASE
> WHEN user.gender='male' THEN ":/"
> WHEN user.gender='female THEN ":)"
> WHEN user.gender is null THEN ":("
> ELSE ":o"
> END
>
> Becomes:
>
> [
> { fn: "ref", ref: "user.gender"},
> { fn: "equals", val1: "0", val2: "male"}
> { fn: "equals", val1: "0", val2: "female"}
> { fn: "isnull", val1: "0"}
> { fn: "case", cases: [
> { condition: "1", output: ":/" },
> { condition: "2", output: ":)"},
> { condition: "3", output: ":("},
> { condition: "4", output: ":o"}
> ]}
> ]
>
>
> Thoughts/Opinions? To simplify, we could things like make single value
> argument functions implicitly refer to the previous output if no input is
> provided...
>
> Jacques
>
