Re: Combined grammar (work in progress)

** Work-in-progress **

I'll try to sort these out in time for F2F3.

On 16/03/2010 1:47 PM, Steve Harris wrote:
> One thing, all aggregates are supposed to be able to have DISTINCT as a
> flag, I don't think this is possible with the draft grammar.

Will do.

It's going to mess the function call syntax up though.

> Also, for completeness, maybe we should have ALL, as the opposite, which
> is the default (as per SQL)?

IMHO I don't see why because the default can't be reset anywhere else. 
Mostly harmless though.

> What about user-defined aggregates too? Can't see them.

They are there - regular function calls.

Is [] syntax in or out?

Need to add [] and DISTINCT

> It seems a bit odd that COUNT() only takes Var, not Expression.
> COUNT(expr) is potentially useful, eg.

Will add.

> COUNT(?x && ?y) # count rows where both ?x and ?y are defined.

I strongly support this to be the case - my proposed definition of the 
value multiset to pass the aggregation supports this.  Eval failure as 
aggregate failure does not.

And it's

COUNT(bound(?x) && bound(?y))


> - Steve



Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 14:01:34 UTC