On 12 Feb 2010, at 16:56, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > On 12/02/2010 4:08 PM, Steve Harris wrote: >> I believe that it's equivalent to Eric's proposal, which was on the >> table for a while, but I admit I didn't dig into it too far. >> >> Your right that it allows you to do the same thing with less bytes, >> but >> I don't think it offers additional features, does it? > > I haven't understood all the details but it seems to produce result > with multiple groupings per row which could either be hard or not > possible in that exact form. > > Could we point to Eric's design? I spent some time trying to track it down, searching IRC logs and the list archive, but couldn't find anything concrete, just oblique mentions. I'm fairly sure I remember the syntax being discussed on the list, but I'd had no luck finding it. IIRC it used the AGGREGATE keyword. It's possible that Eric showed it on a laptop at a F2F, and it was never sent to the list. - Steve -- Steve Harris, Garlik Limited 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44 20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9ADReceived on Friday, 12 February 2010 17:26:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:01 UTC