ADQL: More table 1 woes

Marco Molinaro molinaro at
Tue Jul 12 15:16:01 CEST 2016

Hi Markus, DAL-ers,
that page can be, of course, changed.
I'm personally in favour of merging in one erratum these issues
given they're all about descriptions of operations listed in one place.

So, if everything can be solved using the description column
(making it explicit that the arguments are optional, defaulting
to 0 the "n" value in floor/trunc, seed being optional)
we can simply modify the link on the ADQL-2.0-Next page and
the title of the Err-2 one and add the various subsections.
I don't have a preferred choice for the type and size of the seed.

Other thoughts/comments?

I still like to know whether we should put something about the
sign preservation in the modulo (in the ADQL-2.1 WD, in the
erratum it's already present).


2016-07-12 13:39 GMT+02:00 Markus Demleitner <msdemlei at>:
> Dear colleagues,
> Can we perhaps amend the erratum on mod(x,y) that was recently
> proposed --
> It turns out that in that table there's a few other bugs.  If you
> compare the grammar with the signatures given in the table, you'll
> see that
> * the table requires an argument on rand(), whereas the grammar has
>   it (sensibly) optional [incidentally, if we touch rand's
>   description for 2.1, it might be smart to say what the seed value
>   is -- float? integer?  any sizes I have to accept?]
> * the table requires two arguments on both round() and trunc(), while
>   the grammar (sensibly) says that the second argument is optional
>   (what it doesn't say is that it defaults to 0, but we can pull that
>   from SQL92).
> In both cases I'd very strongly suggest to resolve the conflict by
> fixing the table, and as ADQL-2_0-Err-2 is about fixing that very
> table, too, I'd suggest merging in these two issues.
> Marco?
>       -- Markus

More information about the dal mailing list