- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:42:21 +0100
- To: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 11 Jun 2006, at 20:21, Seaborne, Andy wrote: >>>> I hope I've shown that expressions in SELECT are possible. >>> You have, but not that it's particularly pleasant syntax. >> I'm also inclined to add the commas in the SELECT syntax. >> I personally type it that way all the time. That in itself >> isn't new information... I'm not sure if the future consideration >> of expressions in select is new information or not... but >> then there's the addition of ORDER BY to the language... none >> of those by themselves was enough to get us to reconsider, but >> putting them altogether looks like a pretty good case, to me. >> Making them optional would be friendly to existing code and queries, >> though it's kinda gross. I don't have a strong opinion in any >> direction. > > Technical note: Optional commas don't work (for the motivation of > expressions in the SELECT clause without brackets) because the > comma is used to know an expression has ended and isn't followed > by, say, "+ ?x" which is otherwise ambiguous. Ditto ORDER BY. While were thinking about possible tweaks, something else that's a bit odd is that ASC and DESC have function-like syntax, required because ORDER BY doesn't have commas I guess. We could have the more SQLy ORDER BY ASC ?x, DESC ?y. - Steve
Received on Sunday, 11 June 2006 21:42:28 UTC