It's true that the unsofisticated end-user would not use SQL, but between range (inclusive, exclusive), boolean, fuzzy, etc., the simple query parser you have is evolving into something more complex than SQL. While SQL supports them with key words, we are getting into an endless quest for unused characters to mark the latest variation of the query. By the way, it seems that you already have support for the "WHERE ..." part (AND, OR, NOT, NEAR). If we had "LIKE" and "BETWEEN ... AND ..." we would have almost everything SQL has for the matching part.
I think that the only way to have a query that does NOT look like a programming language is to have natural language understanding (which we won't have for a while.) Once the end user is forced to learn the difference between terms and operators, he already is in the realm of programming languages. --- Brian Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe we could even throw in full support for SQL > like > > SELECT, WHERE, etc. As far as I remember, JavaCC > used > > to have an SQL parser as well, so, I assume we > would > > just need the translation to a Lucene query. I am > sure > > everybody would appreciate using some syntax with > > which they are already familiar. > > But the query parser is targeted at end users, whose > level of "query > sophistication" is searching on Yahoo and eBay, not > writing SQL. The > query parser language should NOT look like a > programming language. > > Don't forget who the audience is! > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
