> 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
