ADQL-2.1 Working Draft available on the repo

[Walter Landry]

Making them reserved improves error detection.  If someone writes

  10*abs*C

rather than

  10*abs(C)

then I can give a descriptive error at parse time

  On line XXX, column YYY, expected '(', found '*'

rather than running the query through the database backend and hoping
that the database generates a decent error message.

Cheers,
Walter Landry

Marco Molinaro <molinaro at oats.inaf.it> wrote:
> Dear Ger,
> I forward your enquiry to the DAL mailing list, being this of interest
> to the full community.
> 
> I have, personally, not a strong opinion on this.
> 
> The reserved ABS keyword, together with other ones referring to
> functions in ADQL, comes from the initial ADQL specification, now
> under revision.
> So the answer can be as simple as the second paragraph in $2.1.2 of
> the spec (refer to either 2.0 or 2.1 version): special meaning and
> escaping solution in place.
> 
> I let the other ADQL experts comment deeper on the topic.
> 
> Cheers,
>     Marco
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Subject: Re: ADQL-2.1 Working Draft available on the repo
> 
> 
> Hi Marco,
> 
> 
> I'm a bit surprised to see that function names like ABS are reserved
> ADQL keywords. A parser does not need it to distinguish between
> function names and identifiers. So why is that?
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ger van Diepen
> 
> 
> 
>>>> Marco Molinaro <molinaro at oats.inaf.it> 5/3/2016 11:32 AM >>>
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> is now available in the IVOA Document Repository
> the Working Draft for the ADQL-2.1 specification:
> 
> http://www.ivoa.net/documents/ADQL/20160502/
> 
> (PDF and HTML format there, plus volute source)
> The WD will be presented with current updates at
> the oncoming Interop in Cape Town (DAL 1, next Tuesday).
> Comments and discussions are welcome there as well
> as on the DAL mailing list.
> 
> Cheers
>      François & Marco (your DAL chair and vice) and Dave (the editor)