ADQL-2.1 internal draft

[Walter Landry]

Markus Demleitner <msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 01:39:34AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
>>   IN_UNIT(M,"solMass") < 10
> 
> That would work if M is a mass.  The translation layer would turn
> this into 
> 
> M
> 
> if it worked out that M is in solar masses

Isn't this undecidable when you use a function like pow(x,y)?  You
have to actually run the query and look at the results before you can
verify the units.

>> >> 5) Why are we making new function names BIT_AND, BIT_OR, etc?  Why not
>> >>    just use the operators?  It is what everyone but Oracle and
>> >>    Informix implement, and they use different names anyway.
>> > 
>> > ...but operators are harder to parse (precedence!  Left-recursive
>> > rules!), and it's easier for a machine to go from prefix notation to
>> > infix than the other way round.  I'm all for functions.
>> 
>> We have to parse the operators anyway.  And it is really not
>> that hard.
> 
> It's not hard, but it's a bunch of extra rules;

I am confused.  The spec says that we have to parse operators.  Are
you suggesting modifying the proposal to get rid of the operators?
That would be gratuitously incompatible with MS SQL, Postgres, MySQL,
and SQLite.

Cheers,
Walter Landry