- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:29:13 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>
On 2010-08-26, at 15:46, Axel Polleres wrote: ... >> It's a restriction but I don't see it as /very/ restricting, especially >> as you have already shown that if the app needs the value of the >> grouping returned it can do so using a nested SELECT. >> >> The balance is the difficulty of determining whether one expression is a >> sub-expression of another, including reordering and rewriting. >> >> Consider >> >> GROUP BY (1/?o) >> >> then >> >> SELECT (fn:floor(1/(-2*?o))+count(*))) > > Sure, but I had maent to allow only the *exact same* expression as the > grouped expression as subexpression. That will be very hard to detect reliably. Bear in mind the expression will have been through a parser by this point, and not all parsers will implement identical grammars (e.g. different kinds of parser, syntax extensions, and so on). - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Friday, 27 August 2010 12:29:48 UTC