Re: Draft: open issues around '?' use.

On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:53:46PM +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
> I find your description of the problems as evidence to consider a change.

I find it very uncompelling evidence, frankly.

> As far as I know, that is possible.  QNames must have a : in them, all
> other names could be variable names.  However, that would not make
> them stand out in the syntax - which is useful for reading them

Very -1 for not distinguishing variables syntactically by giving them
a leading character. iTQL doesn't do this, and hence I find reading
lots of it very frustratingl.

> > -> 	Replace the '?' by a '$' or '_' or at the very least allow the use
> > 	of a '$' or '_' as a synomym for the '?'.
> I could support either replacing ? with $ or allowing both.  My
> slight preference is for replacing ? with $, neutral to negative on
> having both.

-1 on replacing "?" with "$". +1 on allowing both.

> -1 to those; don't say 'variable' to me.


Kendall Clark
And you have never been in love until you've seen 
sunlight thrown over smashed human bone. --Morrissey

Received on Monday, 25 October 2004 14:01:07 UTC