> CQL++ ;-)

I agree, this sounds like a very good alternative, so it will be named CQL++.

> If eCQL will be a functional superset of CQL, how much work would be 
> involved in placing a CQL compatibility layer on top of eCQl to 
> translate the syntax?

I'm a specialist in compiler development and formal languages, and I don't 
think that the effort is high. But this will not be done before CQL++ is 
finished.

> I'm anticipating that some users will have a rather large library of CQL 
> syntax which they will not care to translate by hand.

I'm always kept in mind that CQL scripts (v3.1 and v.5.1) should be runnable 
under Scidb.

> I'm wondering how much of a gap there will be between the two syntaxes.  I 
> believe that you mentioned earlier that the current documentation is not 
> representative of the final syntax.

Although it's a preliminary draft, the current documentation is quite 
representative. The difference between the two syntaxes is enormous, but it is 
convertible in both directions - considering that CQL++ is a superset.

Gregor

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Scidb-users mailing list
Scidb-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scidb-users

Reply via email to